New Navy Leader: Nukes 'Foundational To Our Survival'
Source: Associated Press
By Robert Burns, The Associated Press 3:01 p.m. EST January 5, 2016
John Richardson
(Photo: Jacquelyn Martin/AP)
CONNECTTWEET 1 LINKEDINCOMMENTEMAILMORE
WASHINGTON In his blueprint for a stronger Navy, the sea service's new top boss, Adm. John M. Richardson, is blunt about what he thinks matters most: nuclear punch.
Battling terrorists is today's problem, but in looking toward a farther horizon, Richardson wants a Navy built to counter unpredictable future threats from other countries. No. 1 on his list is a new fleet of nuclear-armed submarines, known as "boomers," that prowl the oceans as the quiet centerpiece of the nation's nuclear force. The Navy plans to replace the current fleet of 14 Ohio-class boomers, which began service as early as 1981, with 12 next-generation subs.
"This is foundational to our survival as a nation," Richardson writes in what he calls his design for the future, released Tuesday.
It also is a gigantic investment, estimated at $100 billion. Even one of the project's biggest supporters, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., calls the cost "staggering." And it happens to be just one of three efforts by the Pentagon to modernize the U.S. nuclear "triad" new long-range bomber aircraft, new or upgraded land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and new missile-toting submarines. The price tag for these, plus related upgrades and replacements, is likely to approach $348 billion by 2024, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Read more: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2016/01/05/new-navy-leader-nukes-foundational-to-our-survival/78313294/
7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)survival of our species. You demented fuck!
Judi Lynn
(160,592 posts)7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)You are #1 when it comes to all things south of the border!!
trillion
(1,859 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Because all the great powers know that such a war would turn nuclear. MAD is the best peacekeeper in the world.
MADem
(135,425 posts)running 'em aground....
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/01/05/navy-captain-relieved-duty.html
This isn't really LBN, though. I won't alert but maybe you should self delete and put it in GD or the National Security group.
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)but nothing to relieve the homeless problem or feeding hungry children.
The Pentagon is missing (steals) $8.5 trillion and they still want more of our money to build their war toys.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)if he missed that flexibility is the center piece of the Navy's mission and it's survival, then he is yet another who has the all answers, but seems to have missed the question.
In the short term perhaps these submarines may be necessary, but we ultimately need to eliminate all nuclear weapons.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Hundreds of years ...
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)and I do not necessarily agree that it is that far into the future.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)We haven't scratched the surface...
To say nothing of getting down into the bedrock...
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Get rid of these men and America will begin to heal.
This notion of safety is utter bullshit. It's hype to keep you giving them a quarter of your paycheck.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)These pentagon shitheads are ruining your life, in case you didn't know.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)he can have his bomb - I want Clean air and water and much much better food
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)FairWinds
(1,717 posts)the skepticism expressed here.
This summer our own navy (the feisty little Golden Rule)
will be standing up against nuclear weapons in the
Pacific Northwest.
http://www.vfpgoldenruleproject.org/
And we are looking for crew !!
Nihil
(13,508 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)might consider nuking countries who are equally fearful.
I grew up in a town called Cheyenne, which houses a main component of the US nuclear missile command. I (along with my friends) all assumed we would die in a nuclear war before ever growing up due to all the rhetoric and fear that this part of the cold war brought. It's shameful that we still cower underneath this deadly umbrella that offers not defense but the destruction of all that we hold dear. It's too late to put this genie back in the bottle, but what a horrible legacy we leave to our children by perpetuating it.
PFunk1
(185 posts)Nukes may have been a combat necessary when their were a few of them (like say late 40's early 50). But deploying nukes (or any sort of major NBC weaponry) now of today's battlefield means the side that first does so basically has lost the war.
Just my opinion. Take is as you may.
groundloop
(11,521 posts)It's a fucking crime to keep pouring money into the military industrial complex out of these misplaced fears and the fear-mongering by assholes such as Adm. Richardson. Our money would be so much better spent improving the lives of our citizens on things such as food and shelter for the needy, better K-12 education, lower/free college tuition, and of course healthcare for all.
rafeh1
(385 posts)power comes from 3 things.
1. economy
2. economy
3. economy
If the econmoy is trash the world will pass by you. If the economy is good then it pays for all sort of toys
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)The naive anti-nuke people seem to not understand this, are in denial about it, or are too blinded by their own ideology to care.