|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Apr 27th, 2004 09:00 PM | |||
| Jeanette X |
I do believe I have just soiled myself from reading that article. 
|
||
| Apr 27th, 2004 05:43 PM | |||
| kahljorn | there's practically no reason why any country would attack another country at the moment. If by country I mean the "Super Powers". If anything, the next few "Wars" will either be political manuevering to capture lesser, third world countries, or just straight out capturing of them. Sort of like the Cold war, cept with more killing. Also, it's sorta like playing RISK. | ||
| Apr 27th, 2004 05:31 PM | |||
| DamnthatDavid |
We need the weapons in the battle against the Demons from DemonWorld. It like earth, and it rotates on the same orbit, just exactly on the otherside of the sun. Where we can't see it. We going to fashion a GIANT Net, and place the Nukes in the net, and then allow it to drift in space. In half a year, DemonWorld will float around and crash right into it! WE WIN!!! |
||
| Apr 27th, 2004 05:04 PM | |||
| Pub Lover | Hey, maybe the US government know something we don't, maybe they need the weapons for another reason that we're not seeing... | ||
| Apr 27th, 2004 09:04 AM | |||
| mburbank |
Or have them all jump off chairs at the same time. I don't see how expanding our nuclear arsenal increases the number of fronts we can fight on. We already posess way more missiles then we need to say "We'll nuke you if we have to" on any front. All we are doing (aside from so called 'mini nukes' which are a portion of our increase but nowhere near the total, thanks for reading OAO) is reinforcing our already extant ability to threaten complete anihilation of an enemy, something no one believes we would do in any case. I am so stymied. |
||
| Apr 27th, 2004 08:53 AM | |||
| AChimp | China's best military strategy would be to send a million troops over and have them all surrender. Then send another million, and so forth. | ||
| Apr 27th, 2004 03:54 AM | |||
| YB | About China, I don't know if the "threat" this country represents is really military, though. The thing is that they might harm the US more on commercial grounds. They already have, haven't they ? | ||
| Apr 27th, 2004 03:48 AM | |||
| YB |
Hey I found the article I mentionned before. It's from 2002, so it's not that recent, but then again that trend in the army's budget is not new either. Rumsfeld said in 2002 that the new military doctrine of the US was to have the capacity to operate on 4 major regional conflicts, wich meant being able to beat two agressors at the same time, plus leading a major counter-offensive somewhere else, plus occupying an ennemy's capital city to bring a new regime. Before 1970 the idea was more around "two and a half" major conflicts; in the seventies, the divorce between china and the soviet union led Nixon to adjust it to "One and a haf". Bush father and Clinton brought that back to two major conflicts, or "Major Theatre Wars" as stated in the 1997's Quadriennal Defense Review. After 9/11, the bush administration decided they had to be able to face 4 major wars/conflicts : "We have to be prepared against new forms of terrorism, but also against attacks towards america's spatial potential, cyberagressions on our communication systems, and chemical or biological weapons" Sorry about the crappy translation, but that's the idea. |
||
| Apr 26th, 2004 09:05 PM | |||
| DamnthatDavid |
I heard this all before, so I stopped reading 1/3rd of the way down. But I agree, it totally idiotic. 2 Nuclear Subs with their arsenals can wipe out every major city, base, and airfield of the Former Soviet Union. FORMER. We have a total supply of nukes that can blanket the earth 3-4 times over. Just a fucking waste of money. |
||
| Apr 26th, 2004 08:30 PM | |||
| Stabby |
It's very scary indeed. Remember when (it wasn't too long ago) we had leaders who understood the danger of nuclear weapons and nuclear stockpiling? Well, at least in only his first term Bush has managed to undo the work of Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton. If he gets re-elected he better step it up because he still has to a lot more work to un-do (hopefully he'll start with that annoying Bill of Rights). Some more reading, from 2003: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa499.pdf |
||
| Apr 26th, 2004 07:56 PM | |||
| AChimp |
We need nukes to defend against the meteors. 
|
||
| Apr 26th, 2004 07:06 PM | |||
| Brandon | You do realize that they already mentioned it in the article, right? | ||
| Apr 26th, 2004 07:04 PM | |||
| The One and Only... | You do realize that there are serious plans to create mini-nukes which could be used in combat, right? | ||
| Apr 26th, 2004 07:03 PM | |||
| Brandon |
Quote:
I'd prefer the neconservatives were ejected from power just to be on the safe side, though. |
||
| Apr 26th, 2004 06:54 PM | |||
| ziggytrix |
You hope they don't have world domination on their agenda, but you posted a link to PNAC. From most everything I've read on that site, they want America (their idea of America, at any rate) to run the world. Do you think PNAC does not represent the views of the average neocon? |
||
| Apr 26th, 2004 06:49 PM | |||
| Brandon |
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
| Apr 26th, 2004 03:32 PM | |||
| mburbank |
Even the argument for complete domination doesn't hold much water. Vast military superiority, sure, but domination through the threat of total anihilation of a foe? That's the only thing we coould possibly use a larger more modern arsenal for, an I don't think anyone believes we'd do it. It's literal madness to enlarge our stockpile. A costly watse at very best. Nixon had a supposed stragtegy of mking our enemies think he was crazy enough to end the world. Is this what Bush is trying to do? I don't think so, and that only leaves the possibility that all thses neo cons actually ARE friggin' nuts. The religous ones want to hasten the second coming through armegeddon, and the non religous think they can utterly dominte the wasteland. The reason I mention China is that there is strand of neocon thinking that sees China becoming a soviet style superpower in the near future and our enemy. The most sane spin I can put in this is that they want a massive deterent in place for that eventuality. |
||
| Apr 26th, 2004 03:12 PM | |||
| Bobo Adobo |
I could see easily more money going into defence, and new ways to combat unconventional warfare. But fucking Nukes? Seriously, Nuclear Weapons are something we should lock away and forget about. Even destroy if we could. All of them. The USA can't go around disarming countries when they are doing research themselves. What kind "moral meassage" does that put out? |
||
| Apr 26th, 2004 11:39 AM | |||
| Brandon | It seems fairly consistent with the neoconservative ideology plaguing the White House these days. Wolfowitz, Cheney, and other folks from the Project for the New American Century are intent on making the United States military as godlike in its strength as possible. I'm not surprised by this nuclear buildup at all, though it is a little creepy. | ||
| Apr 26th, 2004 11:02 AM | |||
| YB |
I'm sorry, I do not have an "informed opinion" indeed. But I totally agree with you : it is frightening and as far as I know no good reasons are given to such figures. It could be logic though as I read some time ago (sorry forgot the source) that it was Bush's goal to have an army able to fight two or more major conflicts at once, since 9/11. |
||
| Apr 26th, 2004 10:41 AM | |||
| mburbank |
I don't know who you are so I'm only almost ready to stop responding to you as opposed to past ready, and only after two posts. No, of course not. I'm asking if anyone is aware of or can posit the reasoning behind our hugely increased spending on Nuclear weapons. If find it particularly frightening that this buildup seems to be happening in the absence of any reason at all, no matter how thin. I'm fairly sure I wouldn't endorse the reason, I can hardly imgine it being convincing, but someone must be making some argument somewhere along the line and I'd like to see it dragged into the light of day. I also think informed people should be forcing the argument so that people will become aware this is going on. I think many hawkish conservative voters would far rather see this kind of many spent on armoring Humvees. If I'm right about that, this buildup is happening under the radar and without the consent of the electorate. I'm looking for informed opinion, which can sometimes be found on this board. |
||
| Apr 26th, 2004 10:27 AM | |||
| YB |
Do you seriously think that China would attack the U.S. ? What for ? invade it or something??? seriously... |
||
| Apr 26th, 2004 10:19 AM | |||
| mburbank |
I find that last statement absurd, and I'm fairly left and a pacifist. More to the point, our Nuclear arsenal, designed to counter the soviets, is by far the largest on the planet, and we no longer confront anyone in terms of an all out nuclear war. our arsenal could destroy the planet several times over and is beyond sufficient for retalliation against 'rouge states' and is a dubious deterent against sucidal terrorists in any case. So what argument could possibly be made for a build up? Is this some long range fear of China or some other thing I don't know about. |
||
| Apr 26th, 2004 10:11 AM | |||
| YB |
I read somewhere on this forum (so it's got to be true) that nuclear weapons were the biggest mistake in history... I can imagine that only a small group of deranged people would want a war that will destroy (half- ?) the planet. Now how is it possible that the president of the USA can be part of such a group ? For me a country's army budget higher than 100$ is a waste of money. |
||
| Apr 26th, 2004 10:01 AM | |||
| mburbank |
I find this terrifying. Any insight, anyone? Apart from earth penetrators, I can't think of any even remotely arguable rational for this. Do any of you all even know what the argument is? Our Hidden WMD Program Why Bush is spending so much on nuclear weapons. By Fred Kaplan (Slate) The budget is busted; American soldiers need more armor; they're running out of supplies. Yet the Department of Energy is spending an astonishing $6.5 billion on nuclear weapons this year, and President Bush is requesting $6.8 billion more for next year and a total of $30 billion over the following four years. This does not include his much-cherished missile-defense program, by the way. This is simply for the maintenance, modernization, development, and production of nuclear bombs and warheads. Measured in "real dollars" (that is, adjusting for inflation), this year's spending on nuclear activities is equal to what Ronald Reagan spent at the height of the U.S.-Soviet standoff. It exceeds by over 50 percent the average annual sum ($4.2 billion) that the United States spent—again, in real dollars—throughout the four and a half decades of the Cold War. There is no nuclear arms race going on now. The world no longer offers many suitable nuclear targets. President Bush is trying to persuade other nations—especially "rogue regimes"—to forgo their nuclear ambitions. Yet he is shoveling money to U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories as if the Soviet Union still existed and the Cold War still raged. These are the findings of a virtually unnoticed report written by weapons analyst Christopher Paine, based on data from official budget documents, and released earlier this month by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The report raises anew a question that always springs to mind after a close look at the U.S. military budget: What the hell is going on here? Specifically: Do we really need to be spending this kind of money on nuclear weapons? What role do nuclear weapons play in 21st-century military policy? How many weapons do we need, to deter what sort of attack or to hit what sorts of targets, with what level of confidence, for what strategic and tactical purposes? These are questions that haven't been seriously addressed in this country for 30 years. It may be time for a new look. Ten years ago, spending on nuclear activities amounted to $3.4 billion, half of today's sum. In President Clinton's last budget, it totaled $5.2 billion, still one-third less than this year's. (All figures are adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2004 dollars.) Have new threats emerged that can be handled only by a vast expansion or improvement of the U.S. nuclear arsenal? Has our nuclear stockpile deteriorated by a startling degree? There's no evidence that either is the case. Yet Paine quotes a statement from the National Nuclear Security Administration—the quasi-independent agency of the Energy Department that's in charge of the atomic stockpile—declaring, as its goal, "to revitalize the nuclear weapons manufacturing infrastructure." Its guidance on this point is the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review of December 2001, which stated that U.S. strategic nuclear forces must provide "a range of options" not merely to deter but "to defeat any aggressor." The one aspect of this reorientation that's attracted some attention is the development of a "robust nuclear earth-penetrator" (RNEP)—a warhead that can burrow deep into the earth before exploding, in order to destroy underground bunkers. The U.S. Air Force currently has some non-nuclear earth-penetrators, but they can't burrow deeply enough or explode powerfully enough to destroy some known bunkers. There's a legitimate debate over whether we would need to destroy such bunkers or whether it would be good enough to disable them—a feat that the conventional bunker-busters could accomplish. There's a broader question still over whether an American president really would, or should, be the first to fire nuclear weapons in wartime, no matter how tempting the tactical advantage. The point here, however, is that this new nuclear weapon is fast becoming a reality. As chronicled in a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, when Bush started the RNEP program two years ago, it was labeled as strictly a research project. Its budget was a mere $6.1 million in Fiscal Year 2003 and $7.1 million for FY 04. Now, all of a sudden, the administration has posted a five-year plan for the program amounting, from FY 2005-09, to $485 million. The FY05 budget alone earmarks $27.5 million to begin "development ground tests" on "candidate weapon designs." This isn't research; it's a real weapon in the works. Paine's report cites other startlers that have eluded all notice outside the cognoscenti. For instance, the Energy Department is building a massive $4 billion-$6 billion proton accelerator in order to produce more tritium, the heavy hydrogen isotope that boosts the explosive yield of a nuclear weapon. (Tritium is the hydrogen that makes a hydrogen bomb.) Tritium does decay; eventually, it will have to be refurbished to ensure that, say, a 100-kiloton bomb really explodes with 100 kilotons of force. But Paine calculates that the current U.S. stockpile doesn't require any new tritium until at least 2012. If the stockpile is reduced to the level required under the terms of the most recent strategic arms treaty, none is needed until 2022. Similar questions are raised about the Energy Department's plans to spend billions on new plutonium pits, high-energy fusion lasers, and supercomputer systems. There is some debate within the administration over such matters, but it's a peculiar debate. For instance, some Pentagon officials favor spending $2 billion over the next five years to do a complete makeover on the W-76 warhead inside the U.S. Navy's Trident I missile—giving it an option to explode on the surface, improving its accuracy so it could blow up a blast-hardened missile silo, and so forth. The Trident I is an old missile; it's scheduled to be warehoused in the next few years. But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has advocated "modernizing" even the "reserve stockpile" of nukes. Opposing this view, many Energy Department officials want to spend less money on these "legacy" weapons and invest it instead on a new generation of smaller, more agile nukes. The official inside debate, in other words, is whether to build new nuclear weapons that are more usable in modern warfare or whether to do that and make the old nuclear weapons more usable, too. A broader debate—over whether to go down this twisted road generally—has not yet begun. |
||
