US Nuclear Arsenal

http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=yu3nd9bck7

I must admit I didn't realise that they have quite THAT many nuclear weapons. How can the US government sleep at night knowing that 99% of their nuclear weapons are surplus, even if their aim was to annihilate the world. These cost $17 billion a year to maintain. Meanwhile, there are people living in horrific poverty in the US, never mind the rest of the world.

What do you think? Is there any possible way to justify these numbers of nuclear weapons?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Onemandisaster

If they werent there thered be a lot of unhappy and more to the point unemployed people. That causes lots of problems compared to keeping these things doing what theyve been doing for the last thirty or forty years: gathering dust in a silo until the dust is wiped off every once in a while.

Reply 2

Bismarck

Dionysus

Any particular reason you didn't start the same thread about Russia, which had a GDP 10 times lower than America's and yet has roughly the same amount of nuclear weapons? Oh yeah, that would be contrary to your worship of tyrants.

Reply 3

Dionysus

Bismarck

Russia's nuclear arsenal is irrelevant.

Reply 4

Bismarck

Dionysus

Russia's nuclear arsenal is irrelevant.

Because Russia is not the great Satan?

Reply 5

Dionysus

Bismarck

Because Russia is not the great Satan?

Because we are not discussing Russia, we are discussing the USA. Just because Russia may or may not still have an equivalent number of nuclear weapons does not mean that the USA is entitled to neglect its responsibilities to its people. As to your 'point', although it barely constitutes one, Russia is currently a far more stable and less dangerous nation than the US. But that is completely irrelevant. The question is:

Can American expenditure to maintain 100x the required nuclear weapons to obliterate the human race be justified when its own citizens live in poverty, and it gives survivors of Hurricane Katrina just $700 compensation.

Reply 6

Bismarck

Dionysus

Your ignorance and bigotry really knows no bounds, does it? Russia more stable? A country ruled by a dictator, without independent political parties, no independent judiciary or media, no press freedoms, intelligence agents who kill businessmen and each other for financial reasons, an economy dependent entirely on the price of oil and gas, and active rebellions in several regions (including Ingushetia seeing violence on levels similar to those of Chechnya prior to the war there) is more stable than the US?

So do tell why you didn't start this thread about Russia, which is far less able to afford its nuclear arsenal?

Reply 7

El Stevo

Dang. I thought some crazy American had nooked the Emirates Stadium.... The i read it properly... Er, dionysus- Bismarck is pwning your ass here... Russia is far less stable than the US. Also, you've forgot threat factor - most people would think twice when there are countries that could end the world quite quickly... And also, where do you think teh 17 bn spent goes to? Just disappears? It's somebody's job to look after them and all that jazz...

Reply 8

gurk

Dionysus

Your first paragraph has been thoroughly debunked, so I'll ignore that. (But an Ex-KGB/FSB run Russia flexing its political, economic, and military muscle is a far more unstable and worrying threat than the US is)

America can easily afford to do so - out of it's $500 billion defence budget, $17 billion is a mere bagatelle.

Your example is both unrelated, and completely false. You're confusing lack of funds with mismanagement of funds. The federal government can afford to pay all the Katrina victims, through the Road Home project ~$60,000 each, but the current funding only provides for a third of applicants. The debate is whether the federal government should pay, or the state government, which is why more money hasn't been put into the fund.

Reply 9

ssk2

As to your 'point', although it barely constitutes one, Russia is currently a far more stable and less dangerous nation than the US.

Whaaa....?

Also, bear in mind that $17 billion is a pittance compared to the total budget.

Reply 10

Captain Crash

Dionysus

Economic considerations aside, I'd suspect it due to taking the 'don't put all you're eggs in one basket' maxim to the extreme i.e. if 99% of your nuclear options are comprimised (due to enemy attack, interception, technical failure, or whatever) you still have enough left behind to destroy the earth. Admittedly it begs the question now the cold war is over do we need them but I believe that is the strategic justification for them.

Reply 11

BluesMan

I agree with everything everyones said so far, but to destroy the earth 100x over is quite a lot. Surely destroy the earth 50x over would be just as effective? and would save money?

Reply 12

UniOfLife

Probably most of the US's nukes date back to the Cold War when they were made not just for their destructive power but also for the power status as part of an arms race.

Reply 13

Captain Crash

BluesMan

I agree with everything everyones said so far, but to destroy the earth 100x over is quite a lot. Surely destroy the earth 50x over would be just as effective? and would save money?

I believe the cost (and labour effects) of decommisioning the weapons is a factor

Reply 14

Varsity

The $17 billion figure is more than likely highly misleading. The US Navy operated a large number of missile subs that more than likely take a large portion of this amount.

Personally if the US wants to spend its cash that way, fine by me.

I don't honestly see the point in land based missile silos when subs are much better platforms, so they should get rid of those, but on the whole who really gives a damn? Its not like they are ever going to be used.

Reply 15

Alasdair

Bis - you've done a good job of deflecting the question, but do you really think it's acceptable for a country (any country) to have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 100 times over?

Reply 16

UniOfLife

alasdair_R

Bis - you've done a good job of deflecting the question, but do you really think it's acceptable for a country (any country) to have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 100 times over?

What difference to acceptibility whether it is 100 times or 3 times?

Reply 17

Alasdair

Well, it's not - but if the argument is that the money could be put to far better use elsewhere, it's relevant...

Reply 18

UniOfLife

alasdair_R

Well, it's not - but if the argument is that the money could be put to far better use elsewhere, it's relevant...

Yes but I think the economic argument has been somewhat defeated already.

Reply 19

Dionysus

UniOfLife

Yes but I think the economic argument has been somewhat defeated already.

How so? Yes someone has pointed out that $17billion is 'not a lot compared to the overall budget'. Yes, and the US could easily have afforded to spend more money on New Orleans both before and after Katrina, but regardless of their overall budget, the fact is that they are pouring $17 billion into nuclear weapons, which is a great deal of money and could have been better spent elsewhere.

I'm not suggesting that the US should decommission their nuclear arsenal. Whilst this would be desirable, it is very unlikely to happen. But that doesn't chance the fact that they have 99 times more nukes than they need to maintain a state of Mutually Assured Destruction. Someone pointed out that their creation was part of the cold war arms race (although it occurs to me that once each side had enough to obliterate the other, further escalation was militarily pointless and purely a propagada exercise). Very well, a lot of pointless things happened in the Cold War. But that doesn't explain why they continue to maintain such ridiculous levels of weaponry now.