US to spend $1 trillion to revitalize its aging nuclear arsenal: Report

No shortage of money in the good ole US of A:

The Obama administration has dedicated a “sprawling new plant” in Kansas City, Mo.--bigger than the Pentagon-- to modernize “the aging weapons that the United States can fire from missiles, bombers and submarines,” The New York Times reports.

Congressional hawks believe that the new plan will put the United States in a “stronger position if a new arms race breaks out” and hope the renovated nuclear plants could allow the US arsenal to “expand rapidly” under a different president, according to the report.

source

a reply to: AlaskanDad

You left out the part that it's a trillion dollars over thirty years .

a reply to: AlaskanDad

So much for nuclear disarmament.

I guess we need to make sure we can continue to destroy the Earth on a moments notice. It will only cost us $1 trillion over 30 years to maintain said ability. What a bargain!

originally posted by: Not Authorized
a reply to: AlaskanDad

So much for nuclear disarmament.

I guess we need to make sure we can continue to destroy the Earth on a moments notice. It will only cost us $1 trillion over 30 years to maintain said ability. What a bargain!

It's not about being able to destroy the Earth in a moments notice, it's about assuring other countries with like powers know that we still take it seriously.

It's an international power chip. A very necessary one.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AlaskanDad

You left out the part that it's a trillion dollars over thirty years .

Yeah ... What's another trillion anyway?

This has the smell of 'slush fund' written all over it. Any information dealing with nukes can be squirreled away from inquiring minds. Should be excellent fodder for endless ATS debate.

a reply to: Snarl

A hell of a lot better over thirty years than five or six.

a reply to: doompornjunkie

Right. I'm sure that is the reason. Because drones, and conventional weapons are not enough to be taken seriously. We need a fresh set of nukes too.

I don't buy it. Any of it. Sorry.

Here is my counter solution. Scrap that garbage plan which is ultimately a one way ticket to extinction, and use that 1 trillion into revitalization of our educational system instead. While we are at it, revoke all military spending down to immediate national defense only.

But, no money to be made in that though.

Things like this make me all the more supportive for RESET BUTTONS.

Do we have education levels to maintain a Nuclear Arms program in the USA?

Obama is looking more like Bush everyday. Spending a Trillion on nukes is hardly a socialistic endeavor. I would think the conservatives would love him! There must be another reason why they despise him so....

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AlaskanDad



This has the smell of 'slush fund' written all over it. Any information dealing with nukes can be squirreled away from inquiring minds. Should be excellent fodder for endless ATS debate.

Not exactly a slush fund, but a need for funds for a very secret project perhaps? Anyone that accepts the reality of our super-secret craft, the black triangles, it is obvious that they are nuclear powered. Also, being so secret, they must be produced in hidden places and in limited qualities. Have exotic craft are one thing, having them in limited numbers means you lose the war. (That is exactly what happened to the Germans in WWII.) Having superior craft in quantities is the answer to staying ahead of the curve for war gadgets. And baby, these triangles are way ahead of the curve!

I suspect that this new plant that by its very meager description will, indeed, be extremely secret. An "in your face" secret plant in plain sight. A place to build vast numbers of those nuke engines for the triangles if not the complete machine. It has to come to that for us to keep the edge.

I hate to say it, but the stake of our country could easily depend upon what comes out the doors of that plant. Nation building and maintaining of the status quo is not for the foolhardy or the pacifists. You don't turn the other cheek to an enemy. The old Boy Scout motto is as true as ever, "Be prepared."

a reply to: Zaphod58


Agreed it is much better that it is planned to be over 30 yrs; not quite like the trillions of welfare for wall street for the 2008 crash. Still not happy to see an escalation of nuclear weapons, but thats my just my uninformed opinion.

I'm just amazed they think they'll be around in 30 years. Me thinks the US will be like Nigeria in about ten years! The US debt clock is spinning so fast it's starting to blur.

DP Damnit!

Great segment by John Oliver about the current state of our nuclear arsenals and how poorly these things are actually guarded:

a reply to: AlaskanDad

I wonder how long it will take them to print that up?

$550,000,000 a day = 5 years, their going to have to pull some overtime!

a reply to: LDragonFire

YEAH they just PUT the instructions on the casing and it's written at 6th grade level.

In the world we live in, unfortunately, nuclear arsenals are a necessary deterrent. I'm sure many people today see no threat of a war between nuclear nations, and to a certain extent this is true, but the Cold War is barely over 2 decades old. Look at the time difference between major wars, or even the World Wars. Just because there is no great threat of nuclear war now does not mean the US can give up its nuclear weapons. Only if all nukes suddenly were given up by all countries would this even be remotely feasible. Nuclear weapons are not a deterrent if they don't work, or are so outdated that countermeasures have been devised and implemented. If US citizens are looking for money to invest in education or some other domestic pursuit, that money is better found elsewhere. Perhaps the pointless wars that secretly serve economic aims, and which further neglect our development of alternative energy reserves and sources, should be halted so we can use that money. That makes much more sense than neglecting one of the most important aspects of our current nuclear strategy. My point is that military spending could definitely be cut, but not in this particular area. This is one of those systems that needs to be modernized fairly regularly.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

I like your sited quote,

Congressional hawks believe that the new plan will put the United States in a “stronger position if a new arms race breaks out” and hope the renovated nuclear plants could allow the US arsenal to “expand rapidly” under a different president, according to the report.

It plainly illustrates the connection between these "green" atomic energy power plants and the nuclear arsenal.

It is truly sickening.

As has already been stated, we NEED these nukes to keep up that status qou of " Mutually Assured Destruction". If we just gave up our nukes tomorrow people in other countries would run rough-shod over us or even worse use their own nuclear weapons(Russia,China) to take out the other remainig super-power and become top-dog. Having these nukes basically insures that they WONT be used unless another country strikes first.