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

[GenSeneca]

one time costs still takes money we don't have.

Maintaining the current stockpile is also taking money we don't have, so your point is moot.

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.

Eliminate Earmarks = $15.9 billion
Assuming you are correct and that it costs 5 times as much to dismantle as it does to maintain, we are looking at a cost of $23 million per weapon cut from the arsenal.

15,900,000,000 / 23,000,000 = 691units could be dismantled the first year with some money left over. Since we are no longer paying for upkeep costs on 691 units, we would have an annual savings of $3,178,600,000.

 

[dogtowner]

Maintaining the current stockpile is also taking money we don't have, so your point is moot.


Eliminate Earmarks = $15.9 billion
Assuming you are correct and that it costs 5 times as much to dismantle as it does to maintain, we are looking at a cost of $23 million per weapon cut from the arsenal.

15,900,000,000 / 23,000,000 = 691units could be dismantled the first year with some money left over. Since we are no longer paying for upkeep costs on 691 units, we would have an annual savings of $3,178,600,000.

ok now we're back to my idea of whittling away within the budget we currently have till they're gone.

still need a place for storing nuclear material. there are more and less expensive options there so at the end we don't cut it to zero. and lets face it this stuff is whats expensive to eeal with.

 

[dogtowner]

Maintaining the current stockpile is also taking money we don't have, so your point is moot.


Eliminate Earmarks = $15.9 billion
Assuming you are correct and that it costs 5 times as much to dismantle as it does to maintain, we are looking at a cost of $23 million per weapon cut from the arsenal.

15,900,000,000 / 23,000,000 = 691units could be dismantled the first year with some money left over. Since we are no longer paying for upkeep costs on 691 units, we would have an annual savings of $3,178,600,000.

ok now we're back to my idea of whittling away within the budget we currently have till they're gone.

still need a place for storing nuclear material. there are more and less expensive options there so at the end we don't cut it to zero. and lets face it this stuff is whats expensive to eeal with.

 

[GenSeneca]

ok now we're back to my idea of whittling away within the budget we currently have till they're gone.

It's budget neutral the first year and nets compounding savings every year after that.

still need a place for storing nuclear material.

I think Dawkins has room over at his house.

there are more and less expensive options there so at the end we don't cut it to zero. and lets face it this stuff is whats expensive to eeal with.

More than zero but still only a fraction of the current $4.6 million per unit is perfectly acceptable to me.

 

[dogtowner]

I think Dawkins has room over at his house.

works for me