Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Expanding America's Nuclear Arsenal Ten-Fold Will Cost $15 Trillion

A static display of intercontinental ballistic missiles at the F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo., front gate the evening of April 4, 2012. From left are the Peacekeeper, the Minuteman III and the Minuteman I. The planet Venus is visible in the sky above the Minuteman missiles and Jupiter is visible to the left of the Minuteman I. (U.S. Air Force photo by R.J. Oriez)

Popular Mechanics: A Tenfold Increase in Nukes Would Be a $15 Trillion Waste of Time

Your suspicions are correct. This is a very bad idea.

President Donald Trump has indicated to his generals and national security staff he wants a tenfold increase in nuclear weapons, an increase that would leave the U.S. will more nukes than it ever had at any point in the Cold War. Such a staggering increase in the nuclear stockpile would reverse decades of arms control agreements bent on reducing the overall number of nuclear weapons and almost certainly trigger a new arms race.

Read more ....

Update: Trump’s Plan for 32,000 Nukes Would Bankrupt America (David Axe, Daily Beast)

WNU Editor: A lot of assumptions are being made on what the US President said in a meeting almost two and a half months ago from an anonymous source. But aside from all of that .... there is no political will in the U.S., Russia, or anywhere else to even contemplate doubling everyone's nuclear stockpiles, let along 10x .... the costs and consequences are too prohibitive, and rightly so.

12 comments:

Aizino Smith said...

More nukes means more clean up & nuke maintenance.

Aizino Smith said...

When you are willing to walk nukes in to the target to fry anti-missile defenses, the consequences are born by your enemy.

Jac said...

I don't know where David Axe, Daily Beast has found this information...

fazman said...

Even Matis says wasn't said.

Fusion said...

Because thousands of nukes aren’t enough. US media is just a shit storm of shit these days.

Anonymous said...

It would also be a breach international treaties the US has signed. Not just making it illegal but opening up the US to UN sanctions and international condemnation.

B.Poster said...

Clearly the nuclear arsenal needs to be upgraded and very likely expanded. It is a matter of debate as to how much expansion. When you lack the conventional capability of your major adversaries, you will need to place a heavier emphasis on nuclear weapons.

Since general Mattis and others say this wasn't said, it probably wasn't. Even if the arsenal is expanded 10 fold how does this counter the Russian mole nuclear weapons buried in the ocean off the US coasts? The working assumption has always been we'd have at least 15 minutes to respond to a Russian nuclear attack. These moles mean our response time is reduced to perhaps two minutes or worse mere seconds. This probably isn't enough time to respond.

Essentially America is now a large open air prison whereby Russia can now blackmail/threaten us any time they want. This is unacceptable. If this threat and the means to redeploy it at a future date are removed, the US may literally have no choice but to preemptively engage in war with Russia. Otherwise we can be held hostage.

Jac said...

B.Poster,
I feel the same of you about the threat, but because we can make the "second hit" will make any adversary thinking twice.

Aizino Smith said...

B Poster,

You are having a grand ole time trolling

opit said...

"we can be held hostage" The world is held hostage right now to the UN Security Council in general and the USA in particular. Threats of assault by the only nation ever to use nukes are not on a level playing field with bullshit concerns that another nation might have the temerity to develop a few nukes of their own. Wrath is reserved for those who say that such a situation is immoral and dangerous.

Aizino Smith said...

Opit,

To me there is no difference between nuking a city, firebombing it out of existence, carpet bombing it out of existence, or raping it out of existence.

If you think the Kamikaze attacks were bad at Okinawa, the invasion of Japan would have been much worse, 10 to 100 times worse.

So given the above 2 statements, I think the statement "the only nation ever to use nukes" is tawdry.


I would suggest that Opit visit the Bridge over the River Kwai, walk the ground, and read the Burmese, Indian, Chinese, Australian, American, British, Dutch, & Australian &m other casualties. Opit can visit Kanchanaburi and see where 90,000+ died. He can learn interesting terms like 'minnowing'. Minnowing io where you use minnows for self treatment instead of maggots.

Use the 2 links immediately below to compare Hollywood and reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma_Railway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_on_the_River_Kwai



www.neatorama.com/2010/11/15/the-true-story-of-the-bridge-on-the-river-kwai/

http://scribol.com/anthropology-and-history/history/thailands-hellfire-pass-the-true-story-of-the-bridge-on-the-river-kwai/

Maybe Opit can watch the Rape of Nanking on film for an encore.

Aizino Smith said...

"The world is held hostage right now to the UN Security Council in genera"

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcYppAs6ZdI

Funny that.

The U.S. does not control the UN security council.