Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Big headline: Obama seeks major increase in nuclear weapons funding

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 08:39 PM
Original message
Big headline: Obama seeks major increase in nuclear weapons funding
It might look like it, but this isn't a retreat from the position he took during the campaign. The funding is actually is intended to reinforce his view that there should be no testing and no fiddling with or 'refurbishing' the stockpile with new warheads. So, the increase is an elaborate counter to the pressure that Congress has resisted so far from the last administration to build mini-nukes and make the weapons 'more usable' by retrofitting them with new warheads and moving forward with the testing regime required which would push past the provisions in the non-proliferation treaty which Bush disregarded. This president is working on a new nuke agreement with the Russians and these funds are intended to bolster the administration's case that those negotiations can succeed without sparking an escalation of nuclear weapon-building.


from National Journal: http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100129_1187.php

Obama to Seek $5B Nuclear-Weapon Complex Spending Boost

The Obama administration plans to seek more than $5 billion in additional funding over five years for sustaining the U.S. nuclear complex and deterrent, starting with a $600 million increase in fiscal 2011, Vice President Joseph Biden wrote in a Wall Street Journal commentary published yesterday (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704878904575031382215508268.html).

The funding boost is necessary even as President Barack Obama pursues the nuclear-disarmament agenda he laid out last April in Prague, Biden stated.

"As long as nuclear weapons are required to defend our country and our allies, we will maintain a safe, secure and effective nuclear arsenal," he wrote.

"Among the many challenges our administration inherited was the slow but steady decline in support for our nuclear stockpile and infrastructure, and for our highly trained nuclear work force," according to Biden.

"For almost a decade, our laboratories and facilities have been underfunded and undervalued. The consequences of this neglect -- like the growing shortage of skilled nuclear scientists and engineers and the aging of critical facilities -- have largely escaped public notice," he said in the column, noting that the congressionally mandated Strategic Posture Commission took the same position last year.

"The budget we will submit to Congress on Monday both reverses this decline and enables us to implement the president's nuclear security agenda," the column states.

The same facilities and specialists needed to ensure the reliability of U.S. nuclear weapons would also help to protect sensitive nuclear materials internationally while enabling the United States to "maintain our arsenal without testing" and "to track and thwart nuclear trafficking, verify weapons reductions, and to develop tomorrow's cutting-edge technologies for our security and prosperity," Biden wrote.

"Even in a time of tough budget decisions, these are investments we must make for our security. We are committed to working with Congress to ensure these budget increases are approved," he said.

"This investment," expected to raise U.S. nuclear weapons spending to $7 billion in the next budget cycle, "is long overdue," Biden added. "It will strengthen our ability to recruit, train and retain the skilled people we need to maintain our nuclear capabilities. It will support the work of our nuclear labs, a national treasure that we must and will sustain.

The budget request will be pursued alongside -- and is not contradictory to -- the administration's effort to conclude a new nuclear arms control deal with Russia, issue its Nuclear Posture Review on March 1, conduct a nuclear security summit in April, and have the United States ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, according to the vice president. To bolster his argument, Biden cited a recent Journal commentary by four U.S. statesmen who have in recent years pressed the case for global nuclear disarmament.

The proposal described by Biden "underscores the fact that the United States can maintain a reliable arsenal without resuming nuclear testing or building newly designed nuclear warheads," the Arms Control Association stated today.


read more: http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100129_1187.php
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704878904575031382215508268.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NecklyTyler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. ""As long as nuclear weapons are required to defend our country and our allies""

Here is the first sticking point about the whole deal:
    As long as nuclear weapons are required to defend our country and our allies


We don't need nuclear weapons, they are useless for defense, and are just a terror weapon brandished for retaliation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. I think, as he does
. . .that we should be able to move toward a day where they aren't needed or available for use. The president has said he can foresee a world without nuclear weapons. But that's not going to happen anytime soon. That's the concern behind maintaining the 'safety' and 'reliability' of the present arsenal. That's also the impetus behind the president's pursuit of a nuclear agreement with the Russians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. This will go towards things like fundamental research.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
3. Insanity!
Edited on Fri Jan-29-10 09:15 PM by L0oniX
We need a full scale revolt against the military industrial corporations ( I mean everyone out in the streets with massive work stoppage )and ...we need to stop joining the fucking military!

Carlyle Group, GE, Honeywell, Sperry, Lockheed Martin, KBR, Halliburton, Blackwater to mention a few.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Didja read it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. A war with nuclear weapons is insanity ...I don't need to say that.
Edited on Fri Jan-29-10 09:21 PM by L0oniX
If I die because I can't afford health insurance then I don't give a damn if the fucking world gets blown up with nukes. It's all insanity. Our government is so fucked up and sociopathic that there is no fixing it ...and that's my opinion.

Obama is playing with fire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. We're not exactly launching a nuclear war.
Edited on Fri Jan-29-10 09:24 PM by HiFructosePronSyrup
It may be you would have figured that out if you had read the article.

Maybe not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. ...---...
I read enough ..."This president is working on a new nuke agreement with the Russians and these funds are intended to bolster the administration's case that those negotiations can succeed without sparking an escalation of nuclear weapon-building."

So what is there to negotiate and why is it happening now or why is negotiation over this issue needed now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swede Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. I take it you don't have family.
Or friends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 02:37 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC