It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
The United States spends more than $52 billion a year maintaining, upgrading and operating its nuclear weapons arsenal each year, a little-heralded study revealed Monday.
Outside of the hefty price tag, equally significant is the way the money is spent. The US devoted just 1.3 percent -- or $700 million -- to preparing for the consequences of a nuclear attack.
The amount of money spent on America's nuclear programs dwarfs the amount spent on diplomacy and foreign assistance (combined), effectively leaving US diplomatic efforts abroad in the long shadow of America's ballistic missiles.
Originally posted by wolf241e
I do however question the need for maintaining some 9,600 of these things, according to the article, when surely 5,000 could do the job (many times over).
It makes me wonder if, by maintaining them, it is cheaper than getting rid of them??
rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
Originally posted by iceofspades
I wonder how much of that money actually goes towards anything nuke-related. It's likely large portions of it are being siphoned into what we would call black projects.
[edit on 1/12/2009 by iceofspades]
Originally posted by Schaden
SSBN programs are expensive.
Originally posted by bodrul
reply to post by burdman30ott6
give it a few years and when the Empire of the United States fails
im pretty sure we will see Americans losing Jobs on the mass and having hard time to pay for daily nesecities, oh wait thats happening now,
The worlds largest super power and you have people living in Slums,
on topic,
along with Russia the US can destroy this planet ten fold,
when it comes to MAD, atleast they know their missiles will work
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
reply to post by MischeviousElf
Wow, where to start?
1. Why is "ending worl hunger and starvation" my country's responsibillity?
Keeping MY country safe, however... very important to me.
2. The mere fact that we have an arsenal which could end all life on Earth as we know it with a simple series of button presses is what has kept this country basically safe from rogue governments.
I do not lose sleep over asshats like Castro or Chavez having nukes.
I don't actually worry about Ahmadinejad
or Jong Ill having nukes.
These are all men who wallow in affluence, greed, and hedonism. They love life, and have no desire to see their own lives ended in a firestorm. That is the advantage having the largest nuclear arsenal in the world grants the US.
Every government around the entire globe knows without a doubt that the instant a mushroom cloud appears over New York City, Los Angeles, Washington DC, or any other series of major US cities, it will equal end game for everyone.
I do, however, worry about religious fanatics getting ahold of nukes
because they have demonstrated that one of their goals is martyrdom and destruction.
But that's for another topic...
2 or 3 nukes wouldn't obliterate any country, friend. Barring the use of something like the Tsar bomb or our (never proven to exist) planet killer missle that theorhetically delivers a destructive blast thousands of times stronger than Hiroshima, it would take several nukes to destroy a single large city.
A single U.S. ballistic missile submarine, armed with 12 Trident missiles each capable of carrying up to eight separate nuclear warheads, can deliver as many as 192 nuclear weapons in short order. Independent analysts estimate that the average missile load today is 6 warheads, which means 144 warheads on a single boat. Each of these weapons will have a yield of either 100 or 475 kilotons, depending on which of the two SLBM warheads are employed. The yield of the bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima was, by comparison, estimated to be at most 15 kilotons– so these modern warheads range from more than 6 to almost 32 times the size of that first city-destroying weapon.
2 or 3 detonated anywhere would be horrific, absolutely, but they wouldn't result in destruction of a nation.
To the OP, the article is slightly misleading. Technically speaking, the money spent of missile defence & on threat reduction could be considered part of preparing for a nuclear attack. I'm pleased to see that they are spending far more on preparing to deflect or eliminate an attack before the payload reaches our country than they are on actually dealing with the aftermath of a detonation. If those figures were reversed, I'd tend to believe that we were expecting a successful attack rather than expecting to be able to defend ourselves from it.
the Cause of war is The preparation of War
Originally posted by iceofspades
I wouldn't necessarily call it anything out of the ordinary conspiracy-wise, but it certainly is shocking that so much money is going towards nukes. I mean the Cold War is over, right? That's what the TV says anyway