George "We need to double the military" Bush realizes we have 5x too many nukes!

[TheLoneGunman]

I would use the word "clueless", but it would be too much of an understatement:

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010617/ts/bush_nuclear_dc_1.html

This man is so busy being the product of other people's interests that whenever he has an original thought, it sounds strange.

By the way, I knew these figures (about our nuclear weapons) when I started high school. Where was Bush? (oh yeah, he was drinking, snorting, and getting C's)

[cruelpupet]

just make sure you give 2 warheads to Bruce Willis so he can blow up any asteroids threatening our lives....Oh and keep one ready for that guy in Canada who wants to nuke the scientologists.

[mojo]

i, too, am only happy when it rains. pour your misery down on me.

[sbp]

``I had no idea we had so many weapons,'' Bush was quoted as saying by an unidentified ``White House insider.''
You should believe always believe a news report that quotes an unidentified White House insider. :disa:

This does bring up an interesting point. Should the nuclear arsenal of the US be reduced? Your thoughts please.

[TheLoneGunman]

The MIC (Military Industrial Complex) is just another version of welfare.

If we stop it, then all those people will have to do productive things, like cure cancer.

[mojo]

or cure chronic nihilism

[sbp]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
The MIC (Military Industrial Complex) is just another version of welfare.Many government programs can be considered welfare with special interests groups wanting the pork barrel handouts to continue. Unlike defense, most of these programs are not even provided for in the Constitution.

So we can take it you were in favor of the Republican 1996 welfare reform act? That has been an overwhelming success. :thumbup: It has helped people become self-sufficient instead of being trapped in an endless cycle of dependancy.


If we stop it, then all those people will have to do productive things, like cure cancer.Aren't we trying to cure cancer already? :confused: Who's to say that won't become welfare with special interest groups addicted to taxpayer money?

[Edited by sbp on 06-17-2001 at 09:05 PM]

[chrissy]

Someone in the article said something about Russians not using them so why do we have them?

OMG! Give me a break! I have been on this earth for 28 years. I usually stay out of political things but the military has been a huge part of my 28 years. And not once have I worried about the Russians!

Geez. I mean, yes, our needs are changing when it comes to the national defenses, but we still need protection. There are a lot of other countries that have technology that we need to defend against.

We have too many? What happens when we go to war? Sorry, the past few wars we have been in haven't been called wars have they.

I normally sit back and watch the political debates go back and forth on this board... but, how can you blame and talk about a guy who has been in office 6 mo, like he has been there for 6 years?



[Edited by crabbie on 06-17-2001 at 09:23 PM]

[TheLoneGunman]

Originally posted by sbp

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
The MIC (Military Industrial Complex) is just another version of welfare.Many government programs can be considered welfare with special interests groups wanting the pork barrel handouts to continue. Unlike defense, most of these programs are not even provided for in the Constitution.


If we stop it, then all those people will have to do productive things, like cure cancer.Aren't we trying to cure cancer already? :confused: Who's to say that won't become welfare with special interest groups addicted to taxpayer money?

The WPA formed to combat unemployment during the depression actually created useful benefits. We received public works that in most cases we use to this day. What benefits have we received from the current arms build-up? How exactly do Machine Grenade Launchers, Stealth Bombers, Chemical Weapons, and other instruments of death help anyone? If you had the choice of having someone build a silo or a school, is there any real choice?

Yes, I agree that in many ways the fight against cancer is an equal scam. I also feel that if outrageous amounts of effort and money were thrown at it, that it could be solved.

Mandate -- Something not normally help by a person that wins the SMALLEST amount of the popular vote. (A clueless moron is in the White House for the next 4 years... get used to it)

[Jihforce]

Originally posted by crabbie
Someone in the article said something about Russians not using them so why do we have them?

OMG! Give me a break! I have been on this earth for 28 years. I usually stay out of political things but the military has been a huge part of my 28 years. And not once have I worried about the Russians!

Geez. I mean, yes, our needs are changing when it comes to the national defenses, but we still need protection. There are a lot of other countries that have technology that we need to defend against.

We have too many? What happens when we go to war? Sorry, the past few wars we have been in haven't been called wars have they.

I normally sit back and watch the political debates go back and forth on this board... but, how can you blame and talk about a guy who has been in office 6 mo, like he has been there for 6 years?



[Edited by crabbie on 06-17-2001 at 09:23 PM]

Worry about the Chinese, heehee.

[pennypinch]

Not a pacifist statement, but one of realism. Honestly, how many nukes do you need? There's a difference between protection (as alluded to by crabbie) and wretched excess. I don't think this is a black and white issue, but one of shades of grey. It's not "have a million nukes" or "have 0 nukes".

The cost most likely needed to service and maintain the excess nuclear arsenal could probably be put to much better use in other areas. The sheer number of nukes is a deterrent. Does that deterrent decrease if we slashed the number by, say, 40-60%? We'd still have enough nuclear destructive power to clean out half the planet!

I thought we went over this in the 80's: the whole idea of nuclear destruction is unviable because it's a no-win game. Destroying the other guys because they've lobbed a few nukes our way only escalates the situation ad nauseum, yada yada yada. Thus, having only a few nukes is enough, because even the threat of nuclear warfare is enough to stop any nuclear attack.

I'm glad Junior came to such a startling realization. It may be a first. Hopefully, he does something about it, but I doubt it. The puppet strings are way too tight.

[plutarcho]

And you want the nuclear waste from 1000 warheads in your backyard? Or we can just send the toxic waste to some neighborhood that is too poor to lobby against it.

Unless you have a magic wand, I say leave 'em in a silo in Nebraska and send some poor schmuck there every 6 months to make sure they aren't leaking.

The article doesn't say that we are going to build more. In fact, our nuclear ban treaties that we've been pushing implies that we won't be building nukes anytime soon.

[pennypinch]

I don't think anyone ever said anything about building more. Like you say, I believe we have agreements that would interefere with the country's ability to build more.

But maybe this is a great opportunity to address the issue of nuclear waste storage. I mean, it's weapon's grade nuclear matter; god knows it can be used in other applications. The stuff's be bought already: use it in power plants and research facilities. It would cut the cost of power significantly if used in utility capacities, wouldn't it?

I'm a big proponent of nuclear power, so I guess that colours my view, but we're going to have to deal with the issue of nuclear waste storage at some point. Why not score some economies of scale and figure out the power and nuclear reduction problems simultaneously?

[fakesurfers]

I think we should keep every nuke we have. It's what won the cold war. Say what you will, but the bottom line is the USSR spent themselves right off the map trying to keep up with us. We may need to do the same thing as China.

I disagree with Pennypinch's thinking that a few nukes is enough. Having a few nukes doesnt even guarantee you a seat at the table (ask Pakistan or Israel or India). Maybe we could pare them down as they become obsolete, but just getting rid of the vast majority is unrealistic. Can we store the radioactive components in Southern California, Penny?

[plutarcho]

I agree with pennypinch. I'm a proponent of nuclear power too. I don't know the cost/feasibility of conversion but sounds like a good idea to me. Of course, if everyone agreed with us on nuclear energy, there wouldn't be power problems in Cali.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by fakesurfers
I think we should keep every nuke we have. It's what won the cold war. Say what you will, but the bottom line is the USSR spent themselves right off the map trying to keep up with us. We may need to do the same thing as China.


I'm sorry, but following this logic, we should keep all the old rifles and gatling guns that helped us win the U.S. revolution and Civil Wars. Perhaps we need to put the USS Constitution back on active duty? As the realm of warfare changes with time, we need to discard the past and equip for the present and future.


I disagree with Pennypinch's thinking that a few nukes is enough. Having a few nukes doesnt even guarantee you a seat at the table (ask Pakistan or Israel or India). Maybe we could pare them down as they become obsolete, but just getting rid of the vast majority is unrealistic. Can we store the radioactive components in Southern California, Penny?

I don't think we're talking about getting rid of all but 10 warheads here. We could pare it down from what, over 10,000 warheads, to say 1500 or 2000. This would still ensure our god-given ability to destroy the world and take everyone down with us (ensuring deterrence), give us far more nukes than India, Pakistan, and China put together, and cut our costs by 70-80%. As to dealing with disposal, just shoot the things into the sun or the surface of mercury or venus or something. Can't be too hard.

[fakesurfers]

Sorry, Zen, but Mutual Assured Destruction assumes that early warning radar will not work. The idea is to have enough warheads so that you can absorb your enemies best shot and have enough left to send them back to the stone age with you. You think we should discard the past, but I think it's a mistake to do it completely. Should we get rid of the M-16 or the Apache helicopter? Theyre relics of that Vietnam war, yet they still do a pretty good job (Osprey anyone?).

If it was easy to get rid of nuclear waste, then why do they have thousands of casks sitting at nuclear plants right now? Bill Gates couldnt afford to send a month's worth of Delaware's waste into space. You think we should just put the crosshairs on Venus and launch the rockets? I dont htink it works like that.

Where does the waste go? I would be in favor of nuclear power if it was cheaper that other forms of generation (in most cases it isnt) and Americans would grow up about nuclear waste.

[froggystyle]

People need to realize that China is not the USSR...The USSR started out economically feeble and never really got on its feet...China is a strong economic community and should be able to keep up with us fairly well...making more nukes so that china does the same will not cause china to bust they have the resources and money needed to do it.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by fakesurfers
Sorry, Zen, but Mutual Assured Destruction assumes that early warning radar will not work. The idea is to have enough warheads so that you can absorb your enemies best shot and have enough left to send them back to the stone age with you. You think we should discard the past, but I think it's a mistake to do it completely. Should we get rid of the M-16 or the Apache helicopter? Theyre relics of that Vietnam war, yet they still do a pretty good job (Osprey anyone?).

The M-16 and Apache are hardly relics of the past, and yet someday they too shall be decommisioned. The point I was trying to make is that all military implements become obsolete over time, even if they are still useable now, and you can't just apply the same old methods to new military situations. Our logics on this are not mutually exclusive. I have to disagree with your ideas on mutually assured destruction. The assumption is we can detect a nuclear threat and launch our nukes before we are destroyed. The size of Russia's arsenal makes moot the idea that we will even be around to fire back after absorbing (more like
being annihilated by) their best shot.


If it was easy to get rid of nuclear waste, then why do they have thousands of casks sitting at nuclear plants right now? Bill Gates couldnt afford to send a month's worth of Delaware's waste into space. You think we should just put the crosshairs on Venus and launch the rockets? I dont htink it works like that.

I think your making a lot of careless statements without looking at the facts. Who knows what Bill Gates can afford. How do you know it would even be expensive? If we can send a rocket across the planet, why can't we send one away from it? That last sentence of yours was pretty flippant, too. You don't think it works like that? Why not? Has anyone tried? Has it even been considered? How do you know, and if you do know, where are you getting your info, cause I'd love to see it myself.


Where does the waste go? I would be in favor of nuclear power if it was cheaper that other forms of generation (in most cases it isnt) and Americans would grow up about nuclear waste.

What growing up? All the growing up we need is to acknowledge that there is enough radioactivity in a few ounces of plutonium waste to wipe out the entire human population, so having it stored anywhere near humanity (like on the same planet) is playing with fire. Is that wat you mean by "growing up?"

[froggystyle]

the only thing i would be afraid of is the rockets malfunctioning...id love to see a challenger like explosion leaving tons of nuclear waste all over our country...that sounds great

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by froggystyle
the only thing i would be afraid of is the rockets malfunctioning...id love to see a challenger like explosion leaving tons of nuclear waste all over our country...that sounds great

Have to agree with you on that one. Wonder how they deal with this on the actual missles. If they blow up enroute to space's nether regions, they'd blow up enroute to anywhere they were originally aimed, no?

[Butch]

Originally posted by froggystyle
People need to realize that China is not the USSR...The USSR started out economically feeble and never really got on its feet...China is a strong economic community and should be able to keep up with us fairly well...making more nukes so that china does the same will not cause china to bust they have the resources and money needed to do it.

Where do you get the idea that China is doing even remotely well economically? Remember the US S&L crisis? Last I checked, China has about 10x the percentage of bad loans on it's banks' books than the US did. They don't do anything about it though because they can keep just treating the wound instead of healing it . . . they'll have to heal it at some point though, and healing it will be VERY painful. The Chinese economy is not healthy at all . . . they just haven't been facing the same economic downturn that the more open Asian countries did with the currency crises because they are so insulated . . . don't let that fool you into thinking they are strong though.

Their military is also nothing to write home about. They can protect China's borders, but if they try to project any sort of power, it is a stretch. Their Navy and Air Force are quite weak . . . and that includes their nukes . . . still liquid fueled. We haven't had liquid fueled rockets in a LONG time. Why do liquid fueled rockets suck? Well, if you want to keep them fueled, they can be destroyed by a well aimed bullet . . . so you leave them unfueled, and by the time a solid fueled rocket is launched from the US and strikes China, you still haven't finished fueling.

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by plutarcho
I don't know the cost/feasibility of conversion but sounds like a good idea to me
Well, there's an intesting bit of public policy. Say the government comes up with a way to convert weapons nuclear matter into fuel forms. It reduces the amount of nuclear matter it has to maintain. It can sell nuclear fuel on the cheap to municipal or state agencies that have or build nuke power plants, thereby ensuring and encouraging smaller cohorts to become power independant. It can sell it on a profit-making basis to private power producers (which'll be a sticky situation; does the government sell anything else on a profit-making basis?).

I think it could be workable, but would take more thinking than I can devote to it in 15 minutes.

[fakesurfers]

Originally posted by zenbooty
The M-16 and Apache are hardly relics of the past, and yet someday they too shall be decommisioned. The point I was trying to make is that all military implements become obsolete over time, even if they are still useable now, and you can't just apply the same old methods to new military situations. Our logics on this are not mutually exclusive. I have to disagree with your ideas on mutually assured destruction. The assumption is we can detect a nuclear threat and launch our nukes before we are destroyed. The size of Russia's arsenal makes moot the idea that we will even be around to fire back after absorbing (more like
being annihilated by) their best shot.

I agree with the first part then. As for MAD, a rational government cannot assume that: A) Early warning radar works, B) a first strike will completely obliterate the enemy's retaliatory capability. It's just too big a chance for a government to take. Why do you think we had bombers flying 24/7 during the cold war?


I think your making a lot of careless statements without looking at the facts. Who knows what Bill Gates can afford. How do you know it would even be expensive? If we can send a rocket across the planet, why can't we send one away from it? That last sentence of yours was pretty flippant, too. You don't think it works like that? Why not? Has anyone tried? Has it even been considered? How do you know, and if you do know, where are you getting your info, cause I'd love to see it myself.

Pardon me if I was being flippant, but it's just not realistic. According to this site:

http://satellite.about.com/industry/satellite/library/weekly/aa020401a.htm

it's about 10k-20k per pound. This is only to get into low Earth orbit. The cost increases exponentially if you want to actually push it out into the solar system. Surely you would want to track it to make sure it didnt just float aimlessly, eventually re-entering the Earth someday. And what if it failed? The failure rate for launches is above 1% and you can be sure it would take many more than a hundred launches to get rid of even a tiny fraction of what we have already produced.





What growing up? All the growing up we need is to acknowledge that there is enough radioactivity in a few ounces of plutonium waste to wipe out the entire human population, so having it stored anywhere near humanity (like on the same planet) is playing with fire. Is that wat you mean by "growing up?"

By growing up, I mean know what is being done with it right now. We produce tons of highly radioactive waste each day. Where does it go? I can tell you as of right now, there is not a licensed nuclear waste dump in the United States. They're working on it:

http://www.ymp.gov/

but it's not ready yet. So, the waste sits in casks on the grounds of Nuclear power plant. I'm quite sure that there is one a short drive from you. Check it out yourself. I think it's kind of naive (no offense) to be in favor of nuclear power and not be fully informed on the byproducts.

I dont mean this as an attack, just trying to impart information.

[fakesurfers]

Originally posted by pennypinch

Originally posted by plutarcho
I don't know the cost/feasibility of conversion but sounds like a good idea to me
Well, there's an intesting bit of public policy. Say the government comes up with a way to convert weapons nuclear matter into fuel forms. It reduces the amount of nuclear matter it has to maintain. It can sell nuclear fuel on the cheap to municipal or state agencies that have or build nuke power plants, thereby ensuring and encouraging smaller cohorts to become power independant. It can sell it on a profit-making basis to private power producers (which'll be a sticky situation; does the government sell anything else on a profit-making basis?).

I think it could be workable, but would take more thinking than I can devote to it in 15 minutes.

It's a breeder reactor, which creates more fissile material than it consumes. It has been mostly discredited due to non-proliferation concerns.

[chrissy]

Originally posted by zenbooty

Originally posted by froggystyle
the only thing i would be afraid of is the rockets malfunctioning...id love to see a challenger like explosion leaving tons of nuclear waste all over our country...that sounds great

Have to agree with you on that one. Wonder how they deal with this on the actual missles. If they blow up enroute to space's nether regions, they'd blow up enroute to anywhere they were originally aimed, no?

I might beable to get an answer on this one. My ex husband works on the minuteman missles at Vandenberg AFB.

[ShawnLee]

As someone actually in the military who sees some of the day to day operations of the military...

I'd first like to say that the military has far more schools than missile silo's. And to say that weapons that kill aren't needed... Well, I hate to put it so bluntly, but killing the enemy saves Americans.

As for too many nukes? Let the people do their jobs, and once they've cut the number of nukes, then criticize their decisions. Besdies, you can't blame George Bush for not cutting the number of nuclear weapons until now. Clinton had eight years to do it, and yet no one complained then.

[eSDee]

Originally posted by crabbie

Originally posted by zenbooty

Originally posted by froggystyle
the only thing i would be afraid of is the rockets malfunctioning...id love to see a challenger like explosion leaving tons of nuclear waste all over our country...that sounds great

Have to agree with you on that one. Wonder how they deal with this on the actual missles. If they blow up enroute to space's nether regions, they'd blow up enroute to anywhere they were originally aimed, no?

I might beable to get an answer on this one. My ex husband works on the minuteman missles at Vandenberg AFB.

I would think that information is Classified. Although the info is probably out there on the web, it could be dangerous to post any info that you learned first hand from your husband. Kindy risky at the very least.

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by ShawnLee105
Besdies, you can't blame George Bush for not cutting the number of nuclear weapons until now. Clinton had eight years to do it, and yet no one complained then.

Granted, but didn't Clinton get START II et al through the various levels of government? or did bush the first do that...:confused:

IF, in fact, Clinton did get the nuclear proliferation/dismantling treaties done, I'd say that's a pretty positive step on his part. I'd encourage Bush not to give in to military hawks with their hands in the cookie jars, and continue the process. These weapons are costing us money that could be far better used in other areas of the country, and a smaller proportion of them would be just as effective. The dismantling and subsequent surplus of materials would allow us to get pretty creative when it comes to selling/disposing of/reusing stuff.

[Blu]

Originally posted by zenbooty

Originally posted by froggystyle
the only thing i would be afraid of is the rockets malfunctioning...id love to see a challenger like explosion leaving tons of nuclear waste all over our country...that sounds great

Have to agree with you on that one. Wonder how they deal with this on the actual missles. If they blow up enroute to space's nether regions, they'd blow up enroute to anywhere they were originally aimed, no?

You should keep in mind that with Challenger, there were a ton more variables. The space shuttle has a lot more equipment, as well as a few more humans involved.


Blu

[OC]

Originally posted by ShawnLee105
Besdies, you can't blame George Bush for not cutting the number of nuclear weapons until now. Clinton had eight years to do it, and yet no one complained then.

You're missing the original point. It's not an issue of blame, it's that it took Bush SIX MONTHS to realize how many nuclear weapons we have. He should have know this in his first couple of weeks with as many briefings as he receives. Hell, he should have known this as a candidate.

[chrissy]

Actually no danger to me posting this. ;)

The warhead isn't activated until seconds before it reaches the destination, so it wouldn't be 'harmful' if something happened enroute. It would land a dud.

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by overclocked

Originally posted by ShawnLee105
Besdies, you can't blame George Bush for not cutting the number of nuclear weapons until now. Clinton had eight years to do it, and yet no one complained then.

You're missing the original point. It's not an issue of blame, it's that it took Bush SIX MONTHS to realize how many nuclear weapons we have. He should have know this in his first couple of weeks with as many briefings as he receives. Hell, he should have known this as a candidate. Yeah, I think it is here that we insert the ever-appropos Conan O'Brien George Bush face...

Hoongh???!

[Speedfreak]

Man.... it is too bad we didn't one of those PERFECT human beings to run for or become president, right guys?? There are just so many perfect people that the odds of one NOT running for president is staggering. :eek:



:disa:

[mojo]

Originally posted by overclocked
[QUOTE]You're missing the original point. It's not an issue of blame, it's that it took Bush SIX MONTHS to realize how many nuclear weapons we have. He should have know this in his first couple of weeks with as many briefings as he receives. Hell, he should have known this as a candidate.

nope...the original point IS blame.

i dunno about you, but i am with sbp on this one. wait....if forgot to say to sbp "finally, a post that uses some logic" :laugh:

i can't believe how smug some people are. come on, now....the name of the game is HATE

[TheLoneGunman]

Originally posted by crabbie

The warhead isn't activated until seconds before it reaches the destination, so it wouldn't be 'harmful' if something happened enroute. It would land a dud.

It might be a "dud" in the sense that it doesn't cause a mushroom cloud, but if the warhead is not intact, it will still spray nuclear waste all over. Additionally, if there is an explosion and the waste is scattered it will be the same as if it detonated, only there will be no primary explosion.

The USA has dropped nuclear bombs a few times by mistake:

In Spain, it just fell off a plane. They claimed nothing happened.

In the ocean, we have lost a few nuclear subs with missiles aboard. Likely they would have been crushed at that depth.

In the Carolinas we detonated at least one nuke and blew a town to bits (Just to see what would happen :-) ) This is pretty well classified, but it still happened.

Also, the ruskies crashed a nuclear sattelite (nuclear powered, not armed) into Canada and irradiated a bunch of the tundra. Canadians moaned a bit, but were too wimpy to bomb the ruskies back to the stone age (although there economy is almost there anyway)

[Butch]

Originally posted by Speedfreak
Man.... it is too bad we didn't one of those PERFECT human beings to run for or become president, right guys?? There are just so many perfect people that the odds of one NOT running for president is staggering. :eek:



:disa:

Can you think of a thing a President should be more knowledgeable about than National Security . . . and please correct me if I'm wrong to believe that nuclear weapons have been and will be a vital component of our national security for the foreseeable future. You can forget about any sort of economic growth or social policies without a secure nation. Yes . . . economic security and political stability are components of national security, but those are for the most part domestic issues . . . it's how you handle the international issues, such as (but by no means limited to) military defense, that are most important.

[Edited by Butch on 06-18-2001 at 07:33 PM]

[OC]

Originally posted by Speedfreak
Man.... it is too bad we didn't one of those PERFECT human beings to run for or become president, right guys?? There are just so many perfect people that the odds of one NOT running for president is staggering. :eek:
:disa:

Oh, come on. No one in these forums has EVER suggested that we expect Dubya to be perfect, so what exactly are you responding to here? What, we level criticism at someone and you take that to mean that we expect them to be perfect? If you point out one of my flaws or errors, is it reasonable of me to respond with "What, and YOU'RE perfect?" Of course not, because it sidesteps the issue. How about addressing the issue and dropping the hyperbole, huh?

-OC

[Edited by overclocked on 06-18-2001 at 08:04 PM]

[Speedfreak]

Originally posted by overclocked

Originally posted by Speedfreak
Man.... it is too bad we didn't one of those PERFECT human beings to run for or become president, right guys?? There are just so many perfect people that the odds of one NOT running for president is staggering. :eek:
:disa:

Oh, come on. No one in these forums has EVER suggested that we expect Dubya to be perfect, so what exactly are you responding to here? What, we level criticism at someone and you take that to mean that we expect them to be perfect? If you point out one of my flaws or errors, is it reasonable of me to respond with "What, and YOU'RE perfect?" Of course not, because it sidesteps the issue. How about addressing the issue and dropping the hyperbole, huh?

-OC[Edited by overclocked on 06-18-2001 at 08:04 PM]


You're right, no one has ever said President Bush is perfect, which is why I didn't suggested anyone ever had said that. I was just trying to think of a situation where there would be no possible way for someone to post something negative about him.

No, I would not expect that kind of response out of you if I pointed out ONE of your flaws, but I might if I kept pointing out every thing you did wrong.