Our Nuclear Stockpile and the Budget (Congress, middle east, enemy, illegal)

[jjthejetplane]

The United States maintains one of the largest nuclear stockpiles in the world. Russia is the only other country that matches in size and scale.

The current regime costs US Taxpayers around $100 billion annually for a stockpile that can destroy the world many times over.

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) has brought forth what he calls "SANE" legislation, an initiative to reduce our stockpile of warheads and divert the money used back to the taxpayers.

Senator Ed Markey introduces the SANE Act during the PNND Assembly | Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament

Others in Congress might be on board. Many of the warhawks however think that we should not disarm any nukes until Russia is ready to cooperate.

Should we maintain our nuclear stockpile when it is obviously bloated? Would disarming warheads be seen as a sign of weakness against Russia?

[01Snake]

Originally Posted by jjthejetplane

The current regime costs US Taxpayers around $100 billion annually for a stockpile that can destroy the world many times over.

Should we maintain our nuclear stockpile when it is obviously bloated?

$100 billion? That's the same amount we BLOW on illegal immigration per year. Should we continue our lax border protection when we're obviously overrun by illegal immigrants sucking off the taxpayers?

Gotta love folks who whine and complain about some things we waste money on while totally ignoring, or in come cases promoting, others.

Bombs > Illegals

[pnwmdk]

Walmart had gross sales of 472 billion dollars. That's about 1.3 billion dollars a day.

Does this mean Walmart had to stock 1.3 billion in merchandise? No, it did not. In fact, Walmart had to stock MANY times that.

The US may have enough nuclear weapons to "blow up the world", but they're not all in one place, form, style, or means of deployment.

Like Walmart's merchadise - it has to be scattered around, with reserves and many different types. You cannot walk into any Walmart store and buy 1.3 billion dollars worth of stuff. Yet, each store has to have MANY times daily sales on the shelf in order to make those sales.

Thus, we may have a lot of bombs, but to have those bombs in every location we need them, every form we need them, for all the contingencies we'd need them for, it is probably not particularly excessive. Cumulatively, it's a lot - like Walmart's stock of merchandise - but like Walmart, it doesn't have all that much in any one place or form.

[Ih2puo]

May as well shut them all down. It's not like we would actually use them in any situation.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by Ih2puo

May as well shut them all down. It's not like we would actually use them in any situation.

Oh, really?

Not only do we need them, we need the willingness to use them, and for everyone to understand that we ARE willing to use them. That's the only means of guaranteeing that we never have to.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by 01Snake

$100 billion? That's the same amount we BLOW on illegal immigration per year. Should we continue our lax border protection when we're obviously overrun by illegal immigrants sucking off the taxpayers?

Gotta love folks who whine and complain about some things we waste money on while totally ignoring, or in come cases promoting, others.

Bombs > Illegals

We could address both.

Address both = good.

[silas777]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

Walmart had gross sales of 472 billion dollars. That's about 1.3 billion dollars a day.

Does this mean Walmart had to stock 1.3 billion in merchandise? No, it did not. In fact, Walmart had to stock MANY times that.

The US may have enough nuclear weapons to "blow up the world", but they're not all in one place, form, style, or means of deployment.

Like Walmart's merchadise - it has to be scattered around, with reserves and many different types. You cannot walk into any Walmart store and buy 1.3 billion dollars worth of stuff. Yet, each store has to have MANY times daily sales on the shelf in order to make those sales.

Thus, we may have a lot of bombs, but to have those bombs in every location we need them, every form we need them, for all the contingencies we'd need them for, it is probably not particularly excessive. Cumulatively, it's a lot - like Walmart's stock of merchandise - but like Walmart, it doesn't have all that much in any one place or form.

Indeed, we actually need to be ramping back up instead of unilaterally disarming ourselves.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by silas777

Indeed, we actually need to be ramping back up instead of unilaterally disarming ourselves.

The problem is more like the age-old problem of conflict:

Failing to understand how time transforms conflicts.

America built a large submarine fleet during WWII. We had the capacity to build them, but they were largely ineffective. Why? Because those in charge on our side used military doctrine from WWI, where large battleships pounded each other into oblivion and submarines were just a decoration on that picture, or an accessory to the plan.

There is no doubt that there will be future conflicts - those who think they can create "peace" are deluded. The question is whether we're preparing for that kind of conflict. We seem incapable of grasping how the middle east is and has been a culture war, sometimes fought with tanks and guns, not a military war.

Some even mistake it for a religious war - it isn't that, either. The fact that Islam drives the culture - and the factions drive the conflict - makes it no less a culture war.

Americans fought a war of revolution for the individual's freedom. Individuals saw value in it and worth the fight. They fight to transform their space into the culture they want, and it reaches us because our influence is also a culture war - freedom is infectious and emboldening - and dangerous to all the factions of Islam based culture. Thus, "we" represent a common enemy. But they will never stop fighting among each other when they're not fighting us.

Are we preparing for those future fights? Doesn't appear so. It appears we're surrendering or appeasing, which will only invite more.

[Mircea]

Wow, what a wonderful example of Josef Göbbels-style propaganda by the Left-Wing.

I'll dissect this and show you how the Left-Wing lies, so you don't play the Propaganda & Disinformation Game.

Originally Posted by jjthejetplane

The United States maintains one of the largest nuclear stockpiles in the world. Russia is the only other country that matches in size and scale.

Both statements are factual.

Left-Wing Propaganda generally contains a small kernel of truth, no matter how differently twisted it might be.

Originally Posted by jjthejetplane

The current regime costs US Taxpayers around $100 billion annually for a stockpile that can destroy the world many times over.

Although "regime" is accurate as a definition, the word is employed as Loaded Language, because of its ability to prejudice.

The stockpile cannot destroy the world.

That's the lie used by Left-Wing authors.

Why can't the stockpile destroy the world?

Um, because....it's a stockpile.

The Left-Wing uses loaded language preying on the ignorance of people to whip them into a frenzy over nothing.

Originally Posted by jjthejetplane

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) has brought forth what he calls "SANE" legislation, an initiative to reduce our stockpile of warheads and divert the money used back to the taxpayers.

This....."...stockpile of warheads...." is an oxymoron.

Somebody farted and "Senator" Markey Mark liked the way it smelled, so he's running around trying to find more.

By definition, there are no warheads in the stockpile.

That's the other part of the lie that the Left-Wing has foisted on you all.

In the US military, nuclear warheads are either in-service, or not. If the warhead is not in-service, then it is at one of three locations -- Lawrence Livermore, Sandia National Labs or Pantex -- to be disassembled.

The components are removed from the aluminum weapon casing and the plastic explosives package, the electronics package and "the Brain" (which contains the communications package among things) is stripped, leaving only the fissile core.

It is a stockpile of fissile material, not a stockpile of warheads.

Now you know why the stockpile cannot destroy anything.

The stockpile contains mostly post-1965 material: a variety of gravity bombs used by the air force, missile warheads used by the army and air force, and a limited amount of material from the navy.

You can't use the fissile material from the Pershing IIs, unless you mill all new laminated PBX, plus the electronics, the weapon casing and everything else has to be manufactured anew.

And you still, you got nothing.

You need to manufacture the radar unit to go with it. And still you got nothing.

You'd need to manufacture all new guidance control adaptors, second stage boosters and the first stage motor. And still, you got nothing, except a cool looking missile.

You need the launchers, and more importantly, the generators.

In case people were wondering, you can't ignite the motor using a BIC lighter.

You have to start the auxiliary power unit, and for that you need a generator, and a special generator just for that missile system, because it generates really weird stuff like 2.3 Volts at 510 microamps. Why? To keep others from using those weapons against you.

A lot of the fissile material used in gravity bombs was specifically designed to be used with certain aircraft, like the B-58 Hustler, the F-101, F-105, the A-7 and such and those aircraft no longer exist, so, you'd have to re-manufacture those aircraft.

Why was the B-58 (and other aircraft) designated to carry certain gravity bombs?

Um, because the B-52 couldn't carry them then, and still can't carry them today.

Sure, you could build new weapons systems, but that would require 3-5 years of design and testing, plus field testing.

I won't even get into decay issues.

This whole stockpile business is nothing but Left-Wing lies.

Let's come back to this Propaganda & Disinformation:

Originally Posted by jjthejetplane

The current regime costs US Taxpayers around $100 billion annually...

And what is the alternative?

The stockpile is fissile material of which 99% is Pu239 and Pu240, not U238 or U238 stripped of U234 and U235 = DU (Depleted Uranium).

You can't exactly make 20mm and 30mm chain-gun ammo, or sabot rounds for tanks out of it.

What is "Senator" I-love-other-people's-farts Markey want to do with this stockpile of fissile material?

Bury it in your backyard?

Right now, the stockpile of fissile material is safe and relatively secure (from fanatics and terrorists and other ne'er-do-wells).

If you think you can maintain the stockpile of fissile material safely and relatively secure for less than $100 Billion, I'm listening.

If you think you're going to do something with the stockpile, that just ain't gonna happen. Presently in our world, Pu239 and Pu240 has no use except as a weapon. It could be used for breeder reactors, but there are few in the world, and they already have enough Plutonium to run them for eternity.

Originally Posted by jjthejetplane

Others in Congress might be on board. Many of the warhawks however think that we should not disarm any nukes until Russia is ready to cooperate.

Here we have a classic Equivocation Fallacy.

The author has shifted from a stockpile of fissile material to "nukes" just as Josef Göbbels would do.

You see this often, especially regarding Basic Income and Negative Income Tax. The Left-Wing intentionally equivocates Income with Wealth in order to mislead you into making all the wrong decisions.

Originally Posted by jjthejetplane

Should we maintain our nuclear stockpile when it is obviously bloated? Would disarming warheads be seen as a sign of weakness against Russia?

Here again we have a classic NAZI-style Equivocation Fallacy equivocating stockpiled fissile material with warheads.

The Eminent Liar Doctor (snicker) Carl Sagan used the same NAZI-style tactics with his Nuclear Winter nonsense. He required use of the stockpile to skew his data, probably because half of the warheads he mentions do not have the ability to eject material into the Stratosphere or Mesosphere, and then of the large strategic warheads, say 750 kilotons, that's 730 kilotons of helium which is non-nuclear and doesn't affect weather.

Too bad your thread is dead.....

Mircea

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

The US may have enough nuclear weapons to "blow up the world", but they're not all in one place, form, style, or means of deployment.

There is enough subs floating around to obliterate Russia and pretty much destroy the rest of humanity becsue of the consequences even if they didn't launch a retaliatory strike. Beyond that I'm really not sure what the purpose is. I understand the argument about having multiple launch platforms but the subs can be sitting anywhere and hit about 2/3 of the earth from their position.