A B-52H drops an unarmed AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile during a Nuclear Weapons System Evaluation Program sortie, September 22, 2014. US Air Force/Staff Sgt. Roidan Carlson
Business Insider: Spending $2 trillion on new nuclear weapons is a risk to more than just your wallet
* The US is pursuing the modernization of all three legs of the nuclear triad, at an estimated cost of $1.7 trillion over 30 years.
* Simultaneous modernization exceeds what's needed for an effective nuclear deterrent and is an unnecessarily costly and risky way to achieve our deterrence requirements.
* Bill Perry is a former US secretary of defense. Jerry Brown is a former governor. John Garamendi is the US Representative for California's 3rd Congressional District.
The world is witnessing a new, dangerous nuclear arms race. Tensions are rising between the Great Powers. As the US, Russia, and China rush to modernize their nuclear arsenals, the trip wire is becoming more taut by the day.
Observation and communication satellites and systems are increasingly vulnerable to attacks. All three countries are fielding stealth and hypersonic nuclear delivery systems designed to evade detection. The risks of a false alarm or a political miscalculation has always haunted the nuclear landscape, and they do even more today.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Developing and maintaining a nuclear force has always been an expensive endeavor. But these numbers are just jaw-dropping.
8 comments:
Russia and China maintain modern nuclear arsenals. Are they spending this much? Perhaps we should look at what the top world powers are doing.
Want to to be the best, study the best!! Of course we cannot "know" the outcome of any military conflict without actually fighting it!!
Parabolic entry paths will get shot down. New technology for the re-entry vehicles are essential. MIRV busses on both sub and land based are needed too. USA ‘s tech is ancient and if the USA can waste a few trillion in Afghanistan or on walking around money for useless COVID projects we can afford defending ourselves from nuclear blackmail.
I know weapons that are stronger than nuclear and this has been around since 1980 and they hide from the population
The problem is we couldn't really afford Afghanistan or the walking around money we spent. Perhaps the best way to defend against "nuclear blackmail" is making peace with the world's dominant powers.
Yeah, we should throw in the towel because our 6,000 to 7,000 nuclear weapons is nothing compared to the Chinese 300. Yeah, we should curl up like a dog and comfort ourselves. After all 300 > 6,000 by a factor of 20.
0% interest.
Nuclear weapons maintain that mutual destruction, not because of the power of the weapons, but rather because they spread nuclear material. A nuclear weapon, even one that is intercepted could still easily result in massive deaths.
Someone above said they know of a more deadly weapon from the 1980s, i tend to agree there as around 1980/1990s there was a massive drop off on scientific progress. You see it with the F22, how you have this epic plane and everything that followed it, well they want to go back to 1940s planes.
To even China, the smaller nuclear power and what was released after the Iran General was assassinate, a global weapon of mass destruction called covid19 and best of all, it follows cold war tactics of plausable deniability!
You can't deny a nuclear attack.
But end of the day, nuclear weapons were only used twice on populations centres, that was 70 odd years ago. The weapons we could build today and do build today, i mean the scientist that finds a more powerful weapon might just keep it to themselves and cover it all up with misinformantion hiding it deep in achieves. Because lets be honest, we can destory planets if we put out minds to it!
Imposter does not know how much Afghanistan cost. A realtor or car salesman could figure that out. Imposter not so much.
Post a Comment