Obama to reduce U.S. nuclear weapons by 80% - no reductions for other nations mentioned

[Gipper]

Long term, it is cheaper to dismantle them.


Why not lead by example? For what purpose would we ask other nations to match our cuts?


Offer your sources and we'll look at the math.


Our nuclear arsenal is in the neighborhood of 70,000 weapons which are stored domestically and around the globe. It's my understanding that Obama is only talking about an 80% reduction on those found outside of the United States. For the sake of argument, let's say he were talking about reducing the entire arsenal by 80%, that would still leave us with at least 14,000 nuclear weapons... Is that number not sufficient to deal with all "potential targets"?

I agree that cutting the arsenal makes sense, but why now? What is the cost to dismantle these nukes? If it is a sizable sum and considerably more money then leaving them alone, I say leave them alone. It seems to me the resources used to dismantle them could be used more effectively somewhere else.

We have much bigger fish to fry then dismantling our nukes. We are a nation with huge domestic problems. Why not deal with the elephant in the room rather than ancillary issues? I suspect BO is all about trying to change the subject with this proposal...the subject being his terrible failing presidency.

What is BO's point in doing this now? If it is to appease our enemies....somehow..in his deluded mind..., then I say this is just a typical dumb thind done by liberals.

 

[dogtowner]

It seems to me the resources used to dismantle them could be used more effectively somewhere else.

it seems to me we could just not borrow the money (from whoever is willing to lend it). are you a secret commie pinko comrade ?

you know. like how we were going to just not have to borrow money for Iraq/Afghanistan and reduce the deficit accordingly.

 

[GenSeneca]

seems reasonable but suggests dismantle costs are right now and we don't have the money

We don't have the money to maintain them either... Shall we wait until we actually reach fiscal insolvency, and the situation becomes critical, before we find the money? Of course by then it will be too late and we'll have serious problems.

they have zero incentive to do so. kinda its been a mutual thing in the past.

Who cares whether or not the other nations follow suit? Seriously, what difference would that make?

1000 / 200 = 5

I have no idea what you are making a reference to here... 1000 - 80% = 200, I was just using an example number.

according to the two sources upstream its more like 8500. 80% reduction takes it to more like 1700 (in roundish numbers).

Fine... 1700 nukes... There are 140 nations on earth, we could drop 12 nukes on every single country on earth and still have a handful left over... How is that not sufficient to cover all potential targets?

 

[dogtowner]

We don't have the money to maintain them either... Shall we wait until we actually reach fiscal insolvency, and the situation becomes critical, before we find the money? Of course by then it will be too late and we'll have serious problems.

so heres a deal... IF we can do it for the annual budget of the Dept of Energy and we can shut that useless dept down when the work is complete, I'll go for it.

Who cares whether or not the other nations follow suit? Seriously, what difference would that make?

life and death

I have no idea what you are making a reference to here... 1000 - 80% = 200, I was just using an example number.

you said

What could we accomplish with 1000 nukes that we could not accomplish with 200 ?

1000 / 200 = 5


so we could accomplish 5 times as much

Fine... 1700 nukes... There are 140 nations on earth, we could drop 12 nukes on every single country on earth and still have a handful left over... How is that not sufficient to cover all potential targets?

in a flat place one can flatten significantly more than you can on a place with uneven terrain. certainly there are a portion of them that are small and flat while others are large and /or un-flat. sounds like a lot but its really not.

 

[GenSeneca]

so heres a deal... IF we can do it for the annual budget of the Dept of Energy and we can shut that useless dept down when the work is complete, I'll go for it.

A more likely scenario is that we continue to pay for upkeep while running annual deficits greater than a trillion dollars.

life and death

Are you suggesting that one, or more, of the other nuclear nations of the world will decide to launch nuclear attacks against the US if we unilaterally begin dismantling our own nuclear stockpiles?

you said
1000 / 200 = 5
so we could accomplish 5 times as much

Are you being humorous? 5 times as much of what?
Can you offer a realistic scenario where the US would be required to use all 8500 of our nuclear weapons?

in a flat place one can flatten significantly more than you can on a place with uneven terrain. certainly there are a portion of them that are small and flat while others are large and /or un-flat. sounds like a lot but its really not.

WTF? Can you offer a realistic scenario where the US would need to use 1700 nuclear weapons?

 

[dogtowner]

A more likely scenario is that we continue to pay for upkeep while running annual deficits greater than a trillion dollars.

agreed

Are you suggesting that one, or more, of the other nuclear nations of the world will decide to launch nuclear attacks against the US if we unilaterally begin dismantling our own nuclear stockpiles?

I'm suggesting they would consider it if the numbers became supportive

Are you being humorous? 5 times as much of what?
Can you offer a realistic scenario where the US would be required to use all 8500 of our nuclear weapons?

dude it was your statement, if its humerus its your joke

WTF? Can you offer a realistic scenario where the US would need to use 1700 nuclear weapons?

they're near useless in areas with mountains (Afghanistan, Pakistan). there are 57 million square miles of earth so those 1700 heaters have 33.5k square miles each to cover. and lets face it, there will be duds and some may be intercepted.

but the main thing is that this is nothing more than base appeasement for that block of give peace a chance voters that he knows won't pass but can blame others for not passing.

the guy does nothing but buy votes and funnel money to his owners.

 

[GenSeneca]

I'm still not seeing a rational argument in favor of keeping 8500 nuclear weapons.

 

[dogtowner]

I'm still not seeing a rational argument in favor of keeping 8500 nuclear weapons.

and I'm not seeing a rational argument for worrying about this with all the real problems we face.

 

[GenSeneca]

and I'm not seeing a rational argument for worrying about this with all the real problems we face.

Is it not rational to believe, given our country's track record, that our problems with overspending will only get worse? We have to deal with it sometime and it's better to deal with it sooner rather than later. There will always be something else going on, that doesn't mean we should ignore the issue indefinitely.

 

[dogtowner]

Is it not rational to believe, given our country's track record, that our problems with overspending will only get worse? We have to deal with it sometime and it's better to deal with it sooner rather than later. There will always be something else going on, that doesn't mean we should ignore the issue indefinitely.

if its a problem sure (and it is to the extent that these things are machines and won't last forever) but its pretty far down the priority list at present.

BO has real fish to fry.

 

[GenSeneca]

if its a problem sure (and it is to the extent that these things are machines and won't last forever) but its pretty far down the priority list at present.

BO has real fish to fry.

I agree this is election year politics designed to appeal to the Left wing base of Obama's party, however, that does not mean the subject is without merit and deserves no consideration.

Until it becomes a crisis, there will always be "bigger fish to fry", many of which simply cannot be fried. The only circumstances under which our nuclear stockpile would become a major priority would be the point where they are actually failing, once they are unstable, leaking nuclear material, or otherwise presenting a crisis scenario. Of course if the situation regarding maintainence of our stockpiles gets to that point, the nation will be facing problems that make our current ones look like a walk in the park. I would like to deal with the subject before it reaches that point.

So, when should we address this issue?

 

[dogtowner]

I agree this is election year politics designed to appeal to the Left wing base of Obama's party, however, that does not mean the subject is without merit and deserves no consideration.

Until it becomes a crisis, there will always be "bigger fish to fry", many of which simply cannot be fried. The only circumstances under which our nuclear stockpile would become a major priority would be the point where they are actually failing, once they are unstable, leaking nuclear material, or otherwise presenting a crisis scenario. Of course if the situation regarding maintainence of our stockpiles gets to that point, the nation will be facing problems that make our current ones look like a walk in the park. I would like to deal with the subject before it reaches that point.

So, when should we address this issue?

I think we can listen to the guys who look after them for a living to let us know (not their political bosses in DC but the hands on guys). I seem to recall they did before when some of the older ones were starting to give out. in as much as they will be the first to go "oh sh*t" they have a vested interest in staying on top of it.

 

[GenSeneca]

Weapons get replaced when they "go bad"... Even if we simply stopped replacing the ones that go bad, it would take about 100 years to have any significant reduction in our stockpile.

Cost of maintaining our nuclear weapons: $39 billion/yr
Number of weapons: 8500
That's a cost of $4,588,235.00 per weapon.
Reducing the number of weapons by 80% (6800) would save us $31,199,998,000 per year in upkeep costs.
How much does it cost to decomission each weapon?
Whatever the amount, it's a one time cost that will be covered by the savings.

 

[Openmind]

With the existence of terror cells and proxy states, the policy of MADD is no longer a credible deterrant to the use of nuclear weapons. Can you make the case that cutting 80% of our nuclear stockpile would leave us vulnerable? What could we accomplish with 1000 nukes that we could not accomplish with 200? I see no rational explanation for maintaining our current level of nuclear weapons, rather, every argument seems to be purely emotional, i.e. having as many as possible makes you "feel" safer.

Amazing! We can actually agree sometime!
Don't let that depress you!

 

[dogtowner]

Weapons get replaced when they "go bad"... Even if we simply stopped replacing the ones that go bad, it would take about 100 years to have any significant reduction in our stockpile.

Cost of maintaining our nuclear weapons: $39 billion/yr
Number of weapons: 8500
That's a cost of $4,588,235.00 per weapon.
Reducing the number of weapons by 80% (6800) would save us $31,199,998,000 per year in upkeep costs.
How much does it cost to decomission each weapon?
Whatever the amount, it's a one time cost that will be covered by the savings.

one time costs still takes money we don't have. if there is a way to use the existing budget to maintain what is to remain and disassemble the others then it becomes worth considering. but then you need to do something with all that nuclear material and that will cost money. a lot less if you use Yucca Mtn but you know how certain people feel about that.