Obama visits Hiroshima and spends $1 trillion on new, smaller, and easier-to-use nuclear weapons

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, May 23, 2016.

  1. aaronvan, May 23, 2016
    Last edited: May 23, 2016

    aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #1
    Nobel Peace Laureate & noted neocon President Obama will visit Hiroshima, lecture the world on the danger of nuclear weapons, continue to provoke Russia, and spend a trillion dollars on new nuclear weapons designs. Sigh, think what we could do with that trillion dollars if it was spent on fixing our infrastructure.

     
  2. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #2
    Could have wiped out all student loan debt, tell me that wouldn't shove a rocket up the economies ass.
     
  3. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #3
    Energy for productive, safe, well-maintained, well-placed, and regulated is one thing. Weaponry is a separate issue, though the sad news is that other countries haven't stopped making them, so "neocon" doesn't fully fit. Idealistic as I am, nonproliferation and dismantling of all nukes worldwide won't happen unless there's a one-world government where all sites are maintained or dismantled, properly. Anyone here see such a positive future happen? Maybe, maybe not. Anything's possible.

    Didn't 60 Minutes do a puff piece on how terrorists were trying to steal Russian nukes or something?
     
  4. CalWizrd Suspended

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #4
    I think everyone has been trying to steal Russian nukes since the Soviet Union crumbled. I like to fool myself into thinking that no-one has been successful.
     
  5. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #5
    We have thousands of nukes. We got to spend one trillion dollars on more?
     
  6. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #6
    A lot of money to spend on something few intend to use, except for Iran and ISIS. Obama, please just get back to your putting practice and play out these few months.
     
  7. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #7
    If it's an @aaronvan thread you can count on the title premise to contain lies. Once again, same as it ever was.
     
  8. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #8
    If you don't like the message you kill the messenger
     
  9. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #9
    I don't like lies and I'll happily call out the liars.
     
  10. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #10
    Call them out With what? Feelings? You have countered nothing from his post.
     
  11. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #11
    On my phone so hard to quote but click through to source pdf link in the OP link and you find that hundreds of billions are for the 30 year maintenance of existing nukes - not new nukes and not new spending.

    Also, too, did I mention 30 year projection, not Obama spending.

    So yea, title premise is full of lies. Like most every other @aaronvan thread.
     
  12. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #12
    No new weapons, eh?

    No new spending, eh? I guess that $1,000,000,000,000.00 is old spending.

    I understand though. The Messiah can do no wrong. You Obamabots are funny.
     
  13. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
  14. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #14
    You see, right there you couldn't resist deliberately lying and misleading.

    My full first sentence was this:

    On my phone so hard to quote but click through to source pdf link in the OP link and you find that hundreds of billions are for the 30 year maintenance of existing nukes - not new nukes and not new spending.​

    Where did I say "no new weapons"?

    No, I said that hundreds of billions of that $1 trillion projection is for maintenance and operations of existing nukes. See the chart on page 11 of this report (pdf) from your OP link.

    Furthermore, you'll see in that pdf that the 30-year, $1 trillion is a projection by the authors based on another 10-year report by DOD. That is a million miles away from your assertion of "Obama ... spends* $1 trillion on new, smaller, and easier-to-use nuclear weapons."

    * "Spends." Present tense. You turn a 30-year study projection into "Obama spends $1 trillion." Yea, you lie.
     
  15. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #15

    From the actual report, it seems to be about maintaining and upgrading an aging system. A system that goes well beyond actual nukes. This program covers everything from rebuilding aging warheads, submarines, facilities and other systems needed to maintain an active nuclear system. A trillion dollars over 30 years is just over 30 billion a year. Compared to some of the other spending programs the gov spends on, this is a drop in the bucket for a 30 yr program.


    http://cns.miis.edu/opapers/pdfs/140107_trillion_dollar_nuclear_triad.pdf
     
  16. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #16
    Maybe @aaronvan thinks (hopes? wants?) Obama will be president for the next 30 years. :eek:
     
  17. happycadaver macrumors regular

    happycadaver

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2012
    Location:
    Germany
    #17
    I have given up hope that anything good will come out auf US politics ever again. Puking all over humanity (and especially their own citizens) on a daily basis.
     
  18. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #18
    Not sure about the OP.

    Overall, the U.S. still maintains that a nuclear strategy is a deterrent, thus spending on a new, more precise nuclear weapons system makes sense. The Russians, and arguably the North Koreans, certainly know that our systems are aging and thus, if we don't make improvements and upgrades, the value of that deterrence goes down each year.

    So, either we spend the money, or we let the deterrence factor dwindle. But, it's clear that either way there are consequences. The Obama administration has decided to cut the number of deployed weapons and committed to a new START.

    Now, the question becomes political. Sanders is the only presidential candidate who has signed onto SANE Act, which would require the U.S. to dramatically decrease its nuclear stockpile. Clinton agreed to look into it, but as Moyers points out, also wants the "strongest military the world has ever known." Meanwhile, Trump has said that our nuclear arsenal doesn't work, but wants a military "so big, powerful and strong that no one will mess with us," Moyers notes.

    So, it is si vis pacem, para vellum?
     
  19. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #19
    Don't you ever get tired of lecturing us all about how terrible Barack Obama is?

    Do you think you have ever actually convinced anyone to change their mind on this topic? More to the point, none of us are going to vote for Barack Obama again. Not even his wife, whom I'm pretty sure loves him. Because he's leaving the Presidency next year, and is barred by the Constitution from running again.

    So, consider giving us all a rest from your daily missives on the latest evildoings of our President.
     
  20. Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #20
    Presidenterrorist Warbama is the military-industrial complex’s trillion-dollar “man,” he also signed the 2012 NDAA into law, the largest military spending bill in U.S. history, worth nearly $1 Trillion. The 2012 NDAA included indefinite detention of Americans with no charge, no trial, no lawyer. And Sen. Carl Levin said on the floor of Congress, that it was Warbama who demanded that be included in the bill or he wouldn’t sign it. The biggest and fakest joke in U.S. politics ever, bar none. Worse than 100,000 Trumps.
     
  21. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #21
    President acts as CIC, wing nuts go crazy. Can you imagine the frothing at the mouth if he announced he was cutting $33 billion a year over ten years to cut our nukes?
     
  22. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #22
    Obama tried to reduce the nuclear arsenal, but Putin wants to make Russia 'great again', and with every military adventure (Georgia, Ukraine, Syria), Putin backs himself further into a corner. Putin is harassing some of the Scandinavian and Baltic countries and I worry he will miscalculate a trigger a war. Keeping our deterrent credible is important, at least for the near term, and stories of the one remaining specialised wrench required to service our nuclear missiles being sent around from silo to silo by Fed Ex does not inspire confidence or deterrence.
     
  23. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #23
    The fact of the matter is that this most recent visit to Vietnam and Japan is a pretty good example of what a fXXXin' awesome President Obama is. Especially compared to some of the cretins and psychopaths haunting the left and right fringes of today's political debates.

    China is a huge country demographically. Its got 1.3 billion people. (Thats a round billion more than we do.) Its also growing economically at a rate faster than anything we've seen in the history the world. And its spending almost $300 billion a year on its military. Which goes a lot further in China than it does here.

    All that makes our Asian friends and neighbors nervous. As it should. But we've got to manage that. We've got to carefully finesse our many allies and trading partners in the region so that their economic and political, social and environmental, military and strategic interests all align with ours.

    In other words: We need them to sign up for the Trans Pacific Partnership. We need to get them on board, saying: "You can trade freely with the US, so long as you pay your workers decently, you don't pollute the environment, and you don't rip off other people's IP." Which, on the face of it, sounds like a pretty good deal.

    Deals like the TPP put China in a tough place. There is nothing inherently militarily or politically threatening to China in them. No cassus belli in the classical or Cold War sense. But its a shot across the bows, letting the Chinese know that aggression and saber-rattling aren't the way to get ahead. And that when push comes to shove, America stands with Japan, and Mexico, with Vietnam, and Indonesia, with Korea and the Philippines. And a subtle invitation to China to come and sit at the table of peace and prosperity. Its an offer they almost certainly won't refuse in the decades to come.

    But America's morons don't understand that. They kid themselves that we're going to get rich again by making sweat socks and t-shirts in the Carolinas and reopening coal mines in West Virginia. That fortress America doesn't need the rest of the world. That we can get off hating on the Mexicans and the Muslims and the Chinese because a two-bit casino operator and ******** said so.
     
  24. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #24
    I would applaud him. George H.W. Bush eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons. That's what real leaders do: they get things done.
     
  25. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #25
    How many times over do you need to be able to destroy the world to compete? Ten times should be sufficient. Last war only needed two bombs
     

Share This Page