President Obama is massively expanding U.S. Nuclear Weapons: (price tag: 1 trillion bucks)

[cali]

U.S. Ramping Up Major Renewal in Nuclear Arms

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A sprawling new plant here in a former soybean field makes the mechanical guts of America’s atomic warheads. Bigger than the Pentagon, full of futuristic gear and thousands of workers, the plant, dedicated last month, modernizes the aging weapons that the United States can fire from missiles, bombers and submarines.

It is part of a nationwide wave of atomic revitalization that includes plans for a new generation of weapon carriers. A recent federal study put the collective price tag, over the next three decades, at up to a trillion dollars.

This expansion comes under a president who campaigned for “a nuclear-free world” and made disarmament a main goal of American defense policy. The original idea was that modest rebuilding of the nation’s crumbling nuclear complex would speed arms refurbishment, raising confidence in the arsenal’s reliability and paving the way for new treaties that would significantly cut the number of warheads.

Instead, because of political deals and geopolitical crises, the Obama administration is engaging in extensive atomic rebuilding while getting only modest arms reductions in return.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/us/us-ramping-up-major-renewal-in-nuclear-arms.html

The nobel peace prize winning president at work. gee, thanks Mr. President.

[cali]

1. I find this deeply upsetting and disgusting.

President Obama has done quite a few things I profoundly disagree with, but this is just unfathomable to me. As with too many other issues, President Obama's rhetoric is miles from his actions.

[drynberg]

24. Yep

[woo me with science]

121. In a long line of deeply upsetting and disgusting.

We are in that deeply disturbing phase of waking up to realize what we really face.

Totalitarianism, American Style
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025573232

[leftstreet]

2. That's a lot of unemployment $, food assistance, medical care

Education, infrastructure rebuilding...

Hope! Change!

[Louisiana1976]

102. Right on!

[Recursion]

91. Only if you include the START ratification that this was the carrot for

So, I guess that's your call.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Yeeeehawww! Santa is coming to town!

[nationalize the fed]

5. Perfect. + about a trillion

A trillion here and a trillion there

Everywhere a trillion

except for the 99%, many stuck with underwater homes because the bankers needed bailouts.

[redruddyred]

15. DON'T FORGET,

SOCIAL SECURITY IS GOING TO GO BANKRUPT.

[truedelphi]

6. This is not a new tendency of Obama's -

He has been known to stage press events such as visiting Russia to say that he is all about limiting nukes. Then to make up for that behavior he immediately gifts the nuclear warhead people with some new tax payer funded program, the second he is back on American soil.

Of course,the fact that Putin is destroying the Ukraine (As our media explains the matter) and also add in how the raging insanity of the New Hitlerian Movement of ISIS is devouring countries in the Middle East -- both of these matters now give him cover to be all about nukes.

I mean how can we fight the coming wars if we don't add in some new nukes?

[Richard D]

7. Really, just

WTF? World poverty could be eliminated with this. Global warming could be reversed. Just what the F is he thinking?

[redruddyred]

13. clearly, not about you.

[lark]

59. He's thinking

"Money, money, money, money" as he continues to give more to the MIC and does nothing for the 99%.

[rhett o rick]

8. Don't be so harsh. We will be protected from the commies* while we stand in the bread lines.

*fill in your favorite bad guy of the moment.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

9. There is no place for nuclear weapons in this world today

zero, nada.
Another point, why is OK that we possess them and Iran can't?

[SomethingFishy]

18. I think the answer is...

Because they are crazy Musilms who will drop a nuke in a second. While we are the good guys, we only go to war as a last resort. We never go where we aren't wanted, we are always ready to lend a hand, and we would never allow a crazy asshole into the Presidency.

Oh wait...

[drynberg]

26. Golly, I was fixing to buy a bridge from you there for a minute...

[uppityperson]

10. The article says the Obama administration, wondering how much of this was done by Congress

[redruddyred]

12. haha, nothing is ever done by congress.

[Initech]

64. Zing!!!

[CentralMass]

49. Follow the lobbying $$

[Recursion]

90. The modernization program was part of the deal by which the Senate confirmed START

It was the carrot he threw to the hawks, along with the fact that some of these modernization expenses will be necessary for the disarmament process anyways.

[redruddyred]

11. nuclear weapons are an especially capital intensive.

I have my gripes with the nsa, but at least intelligence is a not-stupid way to wage a "war on terror".
perhpas he thinks we're heading towards cold war part deux.

[Recursion]

95. I sometimes think DU is a weird black hole where the year 2010 never happened

Question: when was this spending passed, as a rider to what other legislation? It's even in the article.

[redruddyred]

138. a synonym for oral sex comes to mind...

seriously, spending money on nuclear weapons as part of a disarmament treaty?

[Recursion]

139. You don't get that?

Yes, it is. Always has been.

[redruddyred]

140. no, I don't.

but perhaps I am young and naive.
perhaps we are also thinking of different synonyms.

[Recursion]

141. START required Senate ratification

This was the cost of that. I'm giving up on DU at this point...

[redruddyred]

142. sure.

didn't you say this wasn't the first time?

[Initech]

14. Now this is wasteful government spending!

[blkmusclmachine]

16. I've learned not to believe anything the Prez says, because he never follows thru, but does the

exact opposite!


Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

[zeemike]

20. For some people it is enough that he talks the talk.

But they don't take notice when he walks a different walk.

[Cali_Democrat]

17. Russia announced their intention to modernize expand their nuclear arsenal

MAD.

Something you should have learned about in school.

[cali]

23. lol. of course you're on board with this.

MAD was crazy then and it's even crazier now. you can't think of better ways to spend a trillion? Of course not, if the President is for it- no matter what it is- you're for it.

extreme partisanship is not a good thing.

[Cali_Democrat]

27. Neither is perpetual outrage. nt

[Hissyspit]

97. If they're gonna perpetually perpetuate the nuclear arms race

I'm gonna be perpetually fucking outraged about it.

[Cali_Democrat]

105. Says the guy who references Jonathan Turley

The same Jonathan Turley who called for the impeachment of Obama and Clinton.

Why should I take you seriously?

[Hissyspit]

106. Oh good grief.

That's all you've got?

Seriously?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

130. I'm with Hissy, what else you got? nt

[choie]

61. Cali,

I think my response to those who think this (and other) policies of Obama's are a-okay is...SO IF BUSH PROPOSED IT, YOU'D THINK IT WOULD BE OKAY, RIGHT? invariably, the honest answer is "no".

[LondonReign2]

137. There is no issue

that the BOG in general, and that one in particular, can't get on board with..as long as Obama said so. The actual policy simply doesn't matter to them.

[RufusTFirefly]

25. Waah! It's all Pooty Poot's fault. He made us do it!

Yeah, right.



I taut I taw a Pooty Poot

[Cali_Democrat]

34. You're right...Perhaps America should unilaterally disarm and destroy all our nukes

If Russia or any country does hit us or our allies with nukes, we could strike back with cupcakes.

That'll learn 'em.

[cali]

36. cute strawman. No one said anything like that.

you do realize we have a well maintained nuclear arsenal? guess not.

[Cali_Democrat]

52. Cute

Perhaps you missed this 60 minutes report:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/04/28/huge_floppy_disks_and_other_old_tech_is_common_at_air_force_nuclear_missile.html

It appears you don't really follow this issue and instead prefer to engage in a game of perpetual outrage. Otherwise, you would know our nuclear arsenal is outdated.

Knowledge is important.

[cali]

55. are you seriously suggesting that this relatively minor issue

has anything to do with spending a trillion? Unbelievable.

from the link, dear cali-dem:

the missiles have been upgraded numerous times to make them safer and more reliable, the bases themselves haven't changed much.

and:

The Air Force is planning to spend $19 million on launch control center improvements in 2014, and is seeking $600 million for additional upgrades next year.

[Cali_Democrat]

57. 33 billion a year over 30 years

They're upgrading all systems, the 60 minutes report is just an example of how the nuclear wing of our armed forces rely on outdated cold war technology.

You said we had a well-maintained arsenal, but that just isn't the case. Apparently you also missed this report from John Oliver:

Good video also.

http://www.cnet.com/news/john-oliver-why-do-floppy-disks-control-nuclear-weapons/


It's clear I'm having an argument with someone who really has no clue about the subject.

[cali]

65. lol. I'll wager I know as much about as you. And plenty of people

who are very well versed in the subject do not agree with this. Read the article.

[Cali_Democrat]

68. I read the article

It appears you're the one who had no clue that our nuclear weapons systems were so outdated.

It's an indication that you'd rather engage in perpetual outrage than look at the facts. The world is a messy place. Nuclear weapons are here to stay and no major country is going to unilaterally disarm. If you're going to maintain these weapons, it's important that the delivery systems are modern and maintained.

This is the world we live in thanks to FDR and others who helped to usher in the nuclear age.

[Dont call me Shirley]

62. Do you really believe anything from 60 minutes anymore!? Seriously!

Oh, I hear 60 minutes now.......

Drum drum drumbeat for more war

[Enthusiast]

119. 60 Minutes is dead to me.

[stevenleser]

129. I love how she tries to have it both ways.

Anger at the modernization and at the same time claiming she isn't for disarmament. Old weapons degrade, particularly nuclear ones.

Either you disarm or your modernize. There is no third choice.

[1StrongBlackMan]

66. That's funny ...

sprawling new plant here in a former soybean field makes the mechanical guts of America’s atomic warheads. Bigger than the Pentagon, full of futuristic gear and thousands of workers, the plant, dedicated last month, modernizes the aging weapons that the United States can fire from missiles, bombers and submarines.

It is part of a nationwide wave of atomic revitalization that includes plans for a new generation of weapon carriers. A recent federal study put the collective price tag, over the next three decades, at up to a trillion dollars.

Isn't that what this 30 year plan does ... maintain the arsenal? Not expand the arsenal, as the OP title indicates.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

50. Why stop there?

Why not just spend all our money on nukes. After all we need to be able to kill all the boogeymen so scardey cats like you can sleep at night.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

74. Actually we should disarm unilaterally

What would be the point of striking back with nukes. It would just drive humanity further into the dark ages.
Using nuclear weapons is insane, more like committing mutual suicide than a weapon.
No country or entity has the right to unleash that kind of terror on our planet.
There is no right or wrong here, just wrong.
Oh, and if we did disarm unilaterally, we could challenge other nations to do the same.

[progressoid]

124. +1

[closeupready]

134. Completely agree with you.

Naturally, too much money is to be made in nukes, so not likely to happen.

[CrispyQ]

133. Are you fucking serious?

You think the correct response to a nuke hit is to fire back with more nukes?

Too bad the US doesn't consider global climate change as big a threat as the Russians with their bombs. We could set an example, challenge the rest of the world, but no, we cling to the insane for-profit model as we ruin our ecosystem and our lives.

Humanity seems determined to return to the dark ages.

[happyslug]

135. General Colin Powell had called for that, he called Nuclear Weapons Useless.

And once you understand where you would use one, there are either other weapons that do a better job (Smart bombs can do damage with minimal killing of people) or the cost is just not worth it (US Nuclear weapons stock piles reflected the fact no one thought the US could conquer Russia and change its Government in the post WWII era, thus destroying Russia became an option, i.e. destroy what you can NOT control). Today, the US can still destroy Russia, but the real question is WHY? i.e. Russia is NOT the Soviet Union with its policy of spreading Communism. Thus it is possible to restrict Russia to its own neighbors and once you decide on that policy, nuclear weapons to destroy Russia no longer makes sense (it will also destroy Russian Oil and Natural Gas Supplies, which Europe, China and even Japan are becoming more and more dependent on).

Thus the US could give up its Nuclear Weapons, all of them and still be the most powerful country in the world. That Russia would still have Nuclear weapons would be unimportant, who would Putin use them on? The answer would be no one (Russia has says it will use Nuclear Weapons if Smart bombs are used against it, but cutting off oil and Natural Gas is a much more powerful "weapon" in such a situation thus even the Russia retaining Nulcear Weapons appear to be more to do with domestic Politics then any real military need for such weapons).

China has only 500 nuclear weapons, and thinks that is enough. China has no missile that can reach the US, and again seems to NOT to desire to obtain any. The reason for this is simple, China is the industrial giant in today's world that NO ONE wants to destroy, so nuclear weapons will NOT be used against China for where else where we get things made? China does not see any use for Nuclear Weapons, except to chase the US Fleet from its coasts (any that may be easier and cheaper to do with the new generations of Smart Anti Ship Missiles).

Thus the US is facing no threat where Nuclear weapons would come into play. Even if the US goes to war with Iran, the US will NOT use Nuclear Weapons, for such weapons will destroy the oil fields which would be the object of any US attack on Iran. Get rid of them.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

67. Look for the indent in a thread, and there you are.

Congratulations. You appear to be the only person with the special characteristics required to defend the building of new nuclear weapons.

Your ideas are just the bestest.

[Recursion]

98. "Building of new nuclear weapons"?

How many "new nuclear weapons" are being built?

[Unknown Beatle]

19. A trillion dollars

of taxpayer money and we get no say in the matter. As a matter of fact, we vote them in and that's the excuse they'll use for spending on war, "You voted for us, so get used to it."

Fuck it! Just fuck it! I'm so fed up with this never ending bullshit!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama won! Things will change now. Boy oh boy! Hey, what's Obama doing? Why didn't he go after bush and cheney.

Oh, he's playing 10th dimensional chess, something you don't understand.

Wow! He must be some chess player. He throwing money at wall street and he's not prosecuting their law breakers. He's willing to sacrifice his constituents to the trade gods with TPP. Using drones to kill US citizens without due process. A shitload of other things and now spending a trillion on renewing nukes. Wow! I hope he's better than Bobby Fischer.

[Jack Rabbit]

21. Gee, just what the shrinking middle class needs

More nukes for the most heavily armed military force in history.

Even if I believed bombing Iran were a good idea, it would still be an inadequate answer to "why do we need that?"

[hifiguy]

22. Um, WHY???

[frazzled]

28. The article says why (hint: Republican opposition to Start Treaty)

The accord with Moscow was hammered out quickly. The countries agreed to cut strategic arms by roughly 30 percent — from 2,200 to 1,550 deployed weapons apiece — over seven years. It was a modest step. The Russian arsenal was already declining, and today has dropped below the agreed number, military experts say.

. . .

Republicans objected to the treaty unless the president agreed to an aggressive rehabilitation of American nuclear forces and manufacturing sites. Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, led the opposition. He likened the bomb complex to a rundown garage — a description some in the administration considered accurate.

Under fire, the administration promised to add $14 billion over a decade for atomic renovations. Then Senator Kyl refused to conclude a deal.

Facing the possible defeat of his first major treaty, Mr. Obama and the floor manager for the effort, Senator John Kerry, now the secretary of state, set up a war room and made deals to widen Republican support. In late December, the five-week campaign paid off, although the 71-to-26 vote represented the smallest margin ever for the ratification of a nuclear pact between Washington and Moscow.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/us/us-ramping-up-major-renewal-in-nuclear-arms.html?_r=0

The Senate Democrats were as much to blame: in return for cutting arms, those in states with atomic plants pushed for this refurbishing money that would bring dollars and jobs to their states.

[Recursion]

89. It was the deal he had to cut to get START through the Senate

I don't know why DU has such a short memory. This was barely 4 years ago.

[valerief]

29. Disgusting! So much for "being broke." nt

[hardcover]

30. People, did you expect him to simply disarm the US and sing kumbaya?

Do you really believe the US would not be attacked if it rendered itself defenseless?

[SammyWinstonJack]

32. Ugh.

[cali]

37. uh, who the puck said anything about disarming?

we have a large and well maintained nuclear arsenal as is.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

47. You didnt actually read the article, did you?

...

[ConservativeDemocrat]

58. Clearly you didn't

The money is flowing into a sprawling complex for making warheads that includes eight major plants and laboratories employing more than 40,000 people. Its oldest elements, some dating to 1943, have long struggled with fires, explosions and workplace injuries. This March, a concrete roof collapsed in Tennessee. More recently, chunks of ceiling clattered down a stairwell there, and employees were told to wear hard hats.

“It’s deplorable,” Representative Chuck Fleischmann, Republican of Tennessee, said at an April hearing. Equipment, he added, “breaks down on a daily basis.”

In some ways, the challenge is similar to what Detroit’s auto industry faces: Does it make sense to pour money into old structures or build new ones that are more secure, are fully computerized and adhere to modern environmental standards?

Nuclear weapons have a lifespan like anything else. I think I'd prefer them not to be maintained in facilities so decrepit that they are literally falling apart. Just exactly where I'd not like to see radioactive materials spread around.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[ForgoTheConsequence]

71. Oh look another "reality" based Reagan "democrat".

The same "reality" that wrecked our economy and made us spend trillions on an illegal war. I thought your type was extinct?

[SomethingFishy]

70. As of Sept 2013 the USA has

This:


United States: 4,804 nuclear warheads as of September 2013 [2], including tactical, strategic, and nondeployed weapons. According to the latest official New START declaration, the United States has1,585 strategic nuclear warheads deployed on 778 ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers [1]. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that the United States' nondeployed strategic arsenal is approximately 2,800 warheads and the U.S. tactical nuclear arsenal numbers 500 warheads. Additional warheads are retired and await dismantlement.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat


Maybe you can explain to me how having nearly 5000 Nuclear warheads equals "Disarming and singing Kumbaya?

[hardcover]

86. Things get old, we need to replace those retired warheads.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

76. Nuclear weapons are not defensive weapons

If we eliminated them we would not be defenseless, far from it.

[hardcover]

87. Sure they are. They're a deterrent.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

144. I have to disagree

We already have more than enough non nuclear weapons for a strong deterrent.
Nuclear weapons must never be used again and all of them need to be destroyed.
They have been held over our heads for far to long.

[SammyWinstonJack]

31. ...

[BlindTiresias]

33. Funny

We are perpetually "out of money" except when it comes to massive military projects, corporate subsidies, and gifts to the finance sector.

[BlindTiresias]

41. Yeah I love it

All this talk about incrementalism and how democracy is inherently "slow going" and then these massively expensive gifts to the rich get rolled out overnight. It is a sick joke.

[ctsnowman]

145. Exactly!

[eggplant]

35. Up to a trillian over 30 years.

I, for one, would love to see all of our warheads beaten into plowshares (although then we'd probably end up giving away weaponized plowshares to local police and school districts) but I don't read this as some sort of escalation.

We have existing treaties in place which limit how many weapons we have. But these things don't last forever -- they have a limited shelf life. We have to do something with them, and bringing them up to modern technology standards is a good thing. Old, cranky nukes are WAY more dangerous than shiny, new ones.

Plus, that's a lot of technology jobs.

I see this announcement as having zero negative impact on future disarmament.

[cali]

39. even Sam Nunn expressed disappointment in this. and no, 300 million plus a year is sure as shit

not a drop in the bucket- not at a time when we don't have the funds for frickin' basic infrastructure needs, not at a time when we're cutting the social safety net.

fail.

[BlindTiresias]

40. 33 billion a year over thirty years, actually

His original post's math was wrong.

[eggplant]

42. And that's why I corrected it.

The math doesn't change my opinion of whether it is a good idea.

[cali]

45. lol. a few hundred million or a tens of billions, what's the difference?

so you don't consider 33 billion a year a substantial amount either.

figures.

[eggplant]

80. "figures"? Let's not get personal.

Your OP expressed your opinion, my reply expressed mine.

[BlindTiresias]

48. In context

Of the rest of the opinions of the political orthodoxy regarding fiscal affairs it probably should.

[cali]

43. yikes. thank you. when it comes to numbers like that, I'm so dazed

by the enormity, I don't even bother checking anyone's math.

[BlindTiresias]

46. the problem is

The political orthodoxy insist we just "don't have the money" for anything when it comes to the peole and insist on gutting every element of governmental redistribution to the people, and then manage to roll out 33 billion a year projects and give massive tax breaks, subsidies, and outright bailouts to the capital class essentially overnight and without any of the hand wringing you see about exremely modest measures to improve peoples lives or even treat them as an equal citizen. The republic is a full on sick joke at this point.

[eggplant]

79. Yep, a republican controlled house will do that.

GOTV!

[1StrongBlackMan]

69. I had better stop all that reading for comprehension ...

it'll dull your Outrage Gene.

[Recursion]

100. The impact of this on future disarmament is that START got ratified

And this was the 30 pieces of silver that took: spending this money to modernize the remaining arsenal.

[eggplant]

131. Some people get it.

But, governing is hard!

[Paper Roses]

44. Dear Mr. President:

I've been on the fence for a while now. I just fell off, no support left.
---not that whatever I think matters---this government does what it wants.

In my ripe old age, you'd think I'd realize that the plight of the American people is of little concern to the big MIC.
Thanks Washington for another of your wonderful programs. Meanwhile, how about you consider saving the funds for this project and putting those dollars to work here on things other than guns and bombs?

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

78. Well said, I agree.

[cali]

51. his nobel prize is looking more and more ironic.

[JEB]

53. If this is how Democrats generate enthusiasm for our party,

I think we are in big big trouble.

[dotymed]

54. The more that I hear/see

the more certain I am that Bernie Sanders is our last non-violent hope.
I know that Elizabeth Warren is not running but if she were on that ticket, I don't think there would be any stopping them.

[randys1]

56. Is Obama responding to the nut-job REPUBLICAN darling, PUTIN?

Without commenting on right or wrong by Obama, let us not forget that for several years now the republican party has been giving aid and comfort to the enemy, Putin.

They have emboldened him to do any number of things AGAINST USA...

[KamaAina]

60. So much for all that hopey changey stuff

[Efilroft Sul]

63. It costs a trillion bucks over 30 years? Single payer could save 1.1 trillion bucks in a decade!

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost

War pigs, every last one of them. The military-industrial complex just has to have their pooooh-ny.

[locks]

72. We have the utterly blatant hypocritical gall

to tell other nations they can't build nuclear bombs while we ramp up our nuclear warheads. There are an awful lot of us who are sickened by this. Do you think Obama would listen if we all called or wrote the White House on a certain day?

[delrem]

73. no.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

77. No

[bigwillq]

83. No (nt)

[Scuba]

75. Sickening. Another betrayal.

[Recursion]

99. You'd give up START to avoid this spending? Really?

Really?

[Scuba]

107. False choice.

[Recursion]

108. No, it's not. It was actually the choice Obama faced

What specifically different should he have done?

[Scuba]

109. Yes, it is a false choice, your denial notwithstanding.

[Recursion]

112. I'm going to try this one more time because I respect your posting history

Name another way START could have been ratified.

Anything.

Anything.

[Scuba]

113. Are you kidding me? You've not even showed one link between this action and START.

The onus is on you to show how START depends on this action. That was your claim.

[Recursion]

114. ROTFL

Ha. OK, I see you don't actually care about this. Later!

(Hint: the link is even mentioned in the article.)

[Scuba]

115. So you can't show that START relies on this action and no other choice is available. Got it.

Why do you make these claims if you can't back them up?

[Recursion]

116. I did, very clearly

If it wasn't clear I'll make it clear again:

This appropriation was negotiated by the Senate as part of the ratification of START.

Got it?

[Scuba]

117. Nope, not clear at all.

You did not show how START was dependent on this new action, nor did you show that the President had no other choices.

[Recursion]

118. Yes, in fact I did

Later. I see you don't actually care.

[jeff47]

81. Why lie if you have a good argument?

From your own summary:

Bigger than the Pentagon, full of futuristic gear and thousands of workers, the plant, dedicated last month, modernizes the aging weapons that the United States can fire from missiles, bombers and submarines.

It is part of a nationwide wave of atomic revitalization that includes plans for a new generation of weapon carriers.

Instead, because of political deals and geopolitical crises, the Obama administration is engaging in extensive atomic rebuilding while getting only modest arms reductions in return.

So if your argument is so good, why do you have to lie in your title by claiming it's a massive expansion of nuclear weapons?

Do we have a better place to spend that money? Yes. But make that argument on its merits instead of lying about what's going on.

[Doctor_J]

82. I'm pretty sure this is naders fault

Or Lieberman's. Or all the hippies who didn't vote in 2010.

[Recursion]

92. This one's largely Lieberman. Obama needed START ratified

The cost of getting that through the Senate was spending this on the remaining arsenal. It's funny how often posts intended as sarcasm are more or less correct.

[Doctor_J]

93. uh huh

[Recursion]

94. What?

Do you have anything to add about the process by which START was passed through the Senate, which included the authorization for this spending?

[JEB]

84. A trillion here, a trillion there.

Pretty soon you're talking real money. How about we educate our children and fix some bridges and prosecute some war criminals. Fuck this bullshit.

[Union Scribe]

85. But, like, Russia flew near Canada so totally justified.

Plus, uh, ISISqaeda or something.

[Recursion]

88. That was what it took to get the Senate to agree to the 2010 arms reduction treaty with Russia

Did people think Congress was going to forget it passed this?

[sabrina 1]

96. So much for campaign promises! How many are left that haven't been broken?

Oh well, at least we know not to pay much attention to what they say during the campaign anymore.

That makes it harder on the next candidate.

But for the people, it is good to know where we stand so we can make more wise decisions in the future.

Oh, and even if she is the nominee, I will not support Hillary.

[grahamhgreen]

101. Who pays?

[Louisiana1976]

103. We do.

[defacto7]

104. I guess it's time to bring the Neutron Bomb back....

Kill the living and save the buildings.

[dipsydoodle]

110. Tom Lehrer - We Will All Go Together When We Go - with intro

[loudsue]

111. Slavery is NOT dead: it has just become more color-blind.

Clinton, Obama, Schumer, Feinstein, even the venerable John Conyers has been informally silenced.

Every official now does the biddings of their pay masters. It's that or get Kennedied.

[woo me with science]

120. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

What a con job.

[Lenomsky]

122. Not amused :(

Pay down some US debt FFS!

[ballyhoo]

123. Alfred Nobel is rolling in his grave. I suggest

Norway be indicted for giving Obama the peace prize.

[stevenleser]

132. I doubt it. This is right up his alley since Nobel invented dynamite and other explosives. nt

[ladjf]

125. To spend a trillion bucks on a nuclear arms update is no less than insanity.

The Soviet went bankrupt during the last cold war. It could be that Pooty poot is bluffing us into another arms race in hopes that we are dumb enough to "take the bait". In that case, there is as slim possibility that Obama if faking the nuclear upgrade to counter Putin's moves. But, most likely, Obama is just being dumb (again). If the upgrade is real, our only hope is to put a strong, smart and courageous Democrat in office who can scrap the upgrade plan.



(My spell check doesn't work.)

[progressoid]

126. Looks like a lot of you hippie peaceniks need to grow the fuck up and get with the program!!!11!

Mutually assured destruction and trillions of dollars down the drain has kept Murica ™ safe from the Godless Commies for decades.

If we let up, it will be Red Dawn before you know it.



WOLVERINES!!

just in case...

[tclambert]

127. Well, we gotta develop nuclear drones.

And then autonomous nuclear drones. And then artificially intelligent computers to decide when to use the nuclear drones. And then we need to develop anti-robot weapons to fight the robots that are trying to wipe us out.

[Doctor_J]

128. Another view: A trillion bucks is what the health insurance companies are netting every two years

under the ACA. but at least some people are getting HC from that.

[HoosierCowboy]

136. Most of our nuclear deterrent

is not much of a deterrent. How long have the Minutemen III been sitting in their silos waiting for an order that will never come? The Russians and Chinese now have modernized their forces and our stuff is just clunky.

It's a waste, but thinking might change along with advances in technology. That might make the nuclear shell game a little safer to play.

[FlatStanley]

143. I trust his judgment.

He's a thinker.
Chess.
Racism.

[davidthegnome]

146. Seems like a bad time for it.

What the hell are we going to do with them? I understand the concept of mutually assured destruction - but we are already capable of fulfilling our part of the deal there. Modernizing these weapons is apparently going to cost an absolutely insane amount of money... for weapons that we all hope we'll never use. That, almost certainly, will never BE used. In a decade or two we will have to upgrade the upgrades, or upgrade the new weapons and carriers being made. That, or let them rot. There will always be a seemingly logical argument in favor of this kind of spending and weaponry... but it becomes ultimately illogical and even somewhat foolish when you consider two simple things.

1. If we use them, it could damn well trigger the end of the world.
2. We probably aren't going to use them unless we get a President who is eager for the end of days.

So we spend a fortune, more than a fortune, on all of this shit that will never be used, that, to even use, would be an act of insanity.

If anyone had asked me, I would say don't do it. I would say spend the bare minimum in money and in effort to keep the weapons usable - even that I hesitate over.... Beyond that... do we really need more world destroying weapons? Just because the Russians have them? They nuke us, we nuke them back! Everyone wins... or, uh... well, thousands and thousands of people die, then millions more freeze to death in nuclear winter. That's on the optimistic side.

A trillion dollars... enough money to implement a single payer health care system and insure everyone in America. Enough money to buy or build everyone a home. Enough money to feed everyone in America. Enough money to do so many great things... yet, we spend it on this insanity.

Did the events in Fukushima not teach us anything? What happens when a tornado hits a nuclear power plant? What happens when a massive earthquake shatters the damn thing? What about when so much nuclear waste is swallowed up by the ocean? How many nuclear fuel rods would it take to break the whole damn world?

This is indeed MAD. Through mutually assured destruction, we are almost inevitably assuring our own future destruction - possibly even that of the whole world. There are times when I wish I wasn't a human being. How can we even conceive of this mad shit?

[locks]

148. Exactly, David

How can we even conceive of this MAD shit? There was a time I believed that we could and would learn but that time has passed.

[Veganhealedme]

147. He can come full circle by pronouncing it..

'nucular'.

, indeed.