Atomic Bulletin Of Scientists: Yesterday is tomorrow: estimating the full cost of a nuclear buildup
A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate puts the bill for modernization of the nuclear weapons complex and arsenal at $1.2 trillion over 30 years. This new estimate—a significant increase over previous suggestions of the cost for rebuilding the US triad of land, submarine, and bomber-based nuclear forces—has drawn much comment. But the CBO estimate avoids including funds for environmental restoration and waste management of the Energy Department’s nuclear weapons complex—funding that is also in the Congressional Atomic Defense Activities Account that supports the department’s nuclear weapons activities. If these legacy costs are included, then the total price tag goes to $1.74 trillion over three decades.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I am willing to bet that this $541 billion cost is at the low end on how much this entire clean-up will cost.
6 comments:
The Atomic Bulletin of concernicated and confusticated Scientists does not give the cost of the Society/Russian clean up.
Nor does ____ breath Alvarez give the cost of defeat.
The price of defeat can be quite "small".
Just ask the Poles in 1945.
Ask the Russians. They lost 20 million people in WW2 and they won. How many people would they have lost if they had lost the war?
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is a bunch of schmendriks.
sorry buddy, but they are more respected than you give credit for, and the article is about American atomic weapons and not WWII, Tolstoy's novels, or Polish ham
The Bulletin is a special interest groups that harps on America and does not consider the other team much or at all.
I would bet 1/3rd to 2/3rds of the population does not respect The Bulletin.
When those idiot savants were building the bomb, what did they think they were building?
A cluster bomb that released petunias?
Seriously, if these guys were not going to make a bigger, better bomb that would be used, then maybe they should have been in the 1st wave landing during Operation Downfall.
Aizino,
I could not have put this any better than you did. The cost of defeat would have to be measured and there is no mention of the cost of Russian cleanup. There should be for a complete analysis that is worthy of being taken seriously.
If they are in fact respected, they should not be. I would add in America's case we do not and typically have not had the conventional military capability that our adversaries have had or currently have. As such, for America to survive it is going to have to rely more on a nuclear deterrent than the major world powers will. Also, America's threshold at which it will actually resort to using such a weapon will understandably have to be lower than that of the world's major powers.
Not at all sure where you are going with this, Mr Poster. The article, readily dismissed (of course) by Smith, is mostly about CBO figures...Do you also push aside CBS as some leftist operation? Am. seems to me to be still the most armed and mighty nation militarily in the world, spending a heck of a lot more yearly than any other nation
Fred,
No one was disputing CBO figures, but you knew that.
You are not that far mentally gone due to age. You are that far mentally gone due to political persuasion. It is sad.
Since 1996 the U.S. has spend between 16% to 20.9%. The high point was 2007 and the The Surge.
From 2013 to 2016 Russia has spend 15.7% to 20.6%. The high point there was 2016.
"seems to me to be still the most armed and mighty nation militarily in the world,"
- Fred
The most armed nation is not dependent on how much you pay. It is how much men and armaments you put in the field. That should be obvious.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Russia/United-States/Military
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_Russian_Federation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Fred, you are beyond foolish. Go back to posting nudie pictures on the internet.
Post a Comment