posted
Right now we are involved in a war because Saddam was *developing* weapons of mass destruction. Israel, and to a lesser extent US (pun intended), is Saber rattling against Iran because of their Nuke Program.
However, Bush is getting ready to submit a proposal to update our nuclear armament with $100 Billion dollars.
We can probably agree that the US has enough Nukes. We can also speculate that we will never use the new weapons--unless you can imagine a nuclear war.
It is not like we are in an arms race with anyone.
So if Bush can imagine spending $100 Billion on a weapon we neither need nor are going to use, why can't he imagine spending $100 Billion on alternative energy, or research, or education, or updating our internet back bone?
If we have the money, why not make our country better on a fundamental level? If we don't have it then why should we even spend it? I am confused.
quote: The Bush administration is expected to announce next week a major step forward in the building of the country’s first new nuclear warhead in nearly two decades.
quote: The effort, if approved by President Bush and financed by Congress, would require a huge refurbishment of the nation’s complex for nuclear design and manufacturing, with the overall bill estimated at more than $100 billion.
I actually am a fan of our military and guns. I do believe that "ours is a world ruled by force," but this just seems very wrong at a core level.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nuclear missiles can "expire," for one thing.
Really? I had not heard our missiles were close to the end their shelf life. On a side note, what do we do with old and no longer reliable nuclear weapons? Do we have a place that recycles the uranium or cleans it up, or do we just bury them in the mountains?
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guns vs Butter is a basic economic model that is used to determine how much is spent on the military (guns) versus how much is spent on civilian projects (butter).
posted
How come no one's ever in favor of using the $100 million to give it back to the tax payer or simply not spending the $100 million and having less of a deficit? How come it always has to be SPENT on something else?
It's like the "Peace Dividend" at the end of the cold war.. Oh how they rushed out to spend that! It's just like people who win the lottery and within a year have to go beg for their old job back.
quote:How come no one's ever in favor of using the $100 million to give it back to the tax payer or simply not spending the $100 million and having less of a deficit?
Not million. BILLION...with a B.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The original intent of this project is very good. It has 4 goals. It is only the 4 additional goals that cause trouble.
1)Our stock of nuclear weapons is older than most people on this forum. They were created before the Internet, before Cable TV, before Men landed on the moon. So replacing them before they become useless is one of the goals.
2) Maintaining these older bits of equipment is getting more and more expensive. Anyone who has ever had a used car nickel and dime them knows how expensive maintenance can be. While the initial expense of the project is extremely high, over the long run it should actually save the government money.
Even Pixie should appreciate something that should save the government money, allowing taxes to go down, or perhaps not go up as fast.
3) In the dark days when these missiles were designed and built the word "Carcinogenic" was not common. Cancer was a death sentence. The Environment was something Hippies screamed about. The defence of the US was more important than that, or the possible long term health effects on builders, maintenance crews, and soldiers. Why worry about cancer in 20 years when you are working on saving life on the planet this year?
The new missiles are designed to be Green. Well, not Green in color, nor green in a Al Gore/global warming/Green Peace sence. They are designed to be green in that they won't create cesspools of toxic waste just standing around not being fired. Those people who are working on the bombs won't die off in expensive, law-suit laden, preventable diseases twenty years down the road.
4)They must be 100% guaranteed to work--with no testing. Imagine that. Since the US has a ban on all nuclear tests we are asking these people to build bombs and missiles that are guaranteed to work, but we aren't allowed to test them to make sure.
Would you walk into a duel, facing an opponent with your life on the line, and not test the sword to make sure it was sharp, durable, and capable of cutting flesh?
More importantly, they need to be absolutely sure they won't explode or launch by mistake. As our missiles and such get older, they become more and more likely to misfire--even when we don't want them to fire at all. These new ones will be safe from that.
These are four good reasons to spend money on new systems. However, four nasty things have cropped up that turn this good idea into something dangerous.
1) Greedy Contractors: The goal of the Contractor is not to make the best weapon for the government. Its to get the most money out of the government by producing the least amount. Military contractors have a nice long history of bilking the government.
2) Politicians Looking for Pork: While the best, least expensive solution to this may be with Company A in State W, the Senators and Reps from State X have more power, and they want the jobs and money to go to Company C.
3) Politicians Looking for a Cause: Military Spending, especially on our Nuclear Arsenal is not a cause to stir the passions of the people, unless its to stir the ire. Politicians looking to make their names as Peace-Niks can damage and derail this project, eventually costing it, and us, for more than they can save.
4) Media Hounds: Its so easy to make headlines about both sides of this issue, its going to push good people away from this project, and push the project into hiding where useful oversite will be harder.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
But the goal of the greedy contractors is to get as much money as they can while spending as little as they can. They don't care about producing as little as they can. It's profit. And if that means skimping, so be it. Producing little or shoddy products is a by-product of greed rather than the goal.
But you're right. Most of our nukes are from the days of black and white TV.
I really dislike the idea of not testing our new nuclear designs. How do we know they're not all duds from some flaw that our computer simulations don't know about?
I suspect that the money would be far better spend cutting the deficit. Maybe when we get our national debt payed off we can start talking about more tax cuts.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
just for the record, I'm certain that there will be tests of everything possible about whatever new designs they are producing, just not nuclear tests.
It's well within reason to have safe, non-nuclear tests of new propulsion systems for missiles, storage systems, launching systems, even ignition systems for the actual nuclear reaction (just with a neutral core or testing devices rather than the actual nuclear material).
While certainly dan's 4 negative points do factor in they are also factors in every case of military spending, and the 4 good points are quite valid.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or if people manage to convence their followers that they're duds.
"They've never been tested! They're duds! And the American Military know it! Americans are full of lies!" blah blah blah....
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
btw, all 4 negative points apply in some fashion to *any* government project.
Greed (employees as well as contractors), Pork, Polticians looking for a cause to distinguish them from other politcians, and Media hounds looking for a story. They are all a scourge on government we will never get rid of.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you walk into a duel, facing an opponent with your life on the line, and not test the sword to make sure it was sharp, durable, and capable of cutting flesh?
Yes.
quote:What if you weren't rich enough to buy a second?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
