Are you in favor of an expansion of the United States nuclear weapon program?
Don't need missiles, if you detonate them all in just the US humanity is pretty much toast.
What a stupid idea. Haven't we been down this road?
We should continue the scheduled replacement of 1970's Minuteman III--the only ICBM in the USAF arsenal. We should award the contract next year, and begin receiving delivery within 10 years, and then be done with changeover 10 years past that. The new weapon system will then be designed with a 50 year lifespan in mind.
We have submarines with enough missiles to annihilate the world. There is no need to expand.
Analogy: Instead of banning “Weapons of Mass Destruction” we make Better Weapons of Mass Destruction, lower taxes for big business to provide more low income jobs, and make the uneducated majority pay for it with their hard earned tax dollars? WTF!
Yes, it definitely needs to be modernized. Our Nuclear weapon program is in disarray.
And what fact based resource(s) did you use to surmise your opinion?
The military. Our nuclear systems still run on floppy disks, and the warheads are so old that there is no guarantee that they still work.
You did not answer the question.
Yes I did. I'm not going to cure your ignorance and lack of research on the subject.
Really?!? That's where you fact checked your information, and it's up to me to prove your point? “Simple Minds, Simple Ways.” One other point of interest to consider; learn how to conjugate at sentence you sad example of an American human being. 🎄
I didn't ask you to comment. I have no obligation to prove anything to you. I know the truth, and you can find it easily as well.
Carcano, “Are you drinking your bathwater again?!?”
Well that's a retarded statement since sink water and showe/bath water come from the same drinkable source.
It was rhetorical, humorous, and a bathtub in use is not a potable resource for drinking, but in your case, I guess it is. Hahahaha!! :o)
Expensive. Absolutely not.
Our security is worth the cost.
Says someone who knows nothing of nuclear policy and deterrence theory.
Says someone who knows nothing about the state of our nuclear arsenal compared to Russia and China.
The United States can kill every human on earth many times over. So can Russia. Think.
Actually we have no idea whether or not our nuclear weapons still work after all these years.
They still work. They expire in 2030 and the contracts to create the same amount have already worked their way through congress. They will then replace the nukes on subs and on land. Your opinion is ludicrous.
Lmao are you serious?
Awe! Couldn't find this in google?
Haha it's ok. This info can be found in nuclear nightmares. It's a book. God knows you would need google and then some to keep up with me.
I just find it funny that you think nukes have an accurate expiration date despite the fact that we've never been able to test an expiration date for them.
These are nukes, not eggs.
If scientists can measure the half life of radioactive isotopes I'm pretty sure they can measure when a nuke will expire.
Also the date I gave is their approximate "usage date" they would probably still be good after 2030. It's just that the US doesn't want to take that chance so the contracts are for 2030.
So what makes you think that a nuke with long deteriorated radioactive isotopes will actually work?
The contracts are designed to complete new nukes before the old ones expire. The expiration hasn't happened yet.
We can kill every person on earth many times. Your initial argument about security is still ludicrous. We don't need to make more nukes.
Trump vs putin Cold War 2
Trump wants friendship with Putin so that makes no sense. If anyone wants a Cold War with the Russians its the Democrats who accuse Putin of everything they don't like.
Says the guy with "Islam is trash" in his profile.
The Muslims don't have nukes, luckily.
How many nukes do you need ?
"Expanding nuclear capabilities"
How does that improve my life? Or anyone's
We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the earth five times. We don't need no build up. There goes your taxpayer money trump voters
The USA must stay strong and able to withstand any threat.
Unless you want to g up in a nice big mushroom cloud befor our potential enemies/foe? What your choice?
Let a nuclear engineer enlighten you. Our current arsenal has been reduced in accordance with the nuclear treaties with the Russians. They have not followed suit. They are years behind in the conversions of their high enriched uranium into mixed oxide fuel for power reactors. Our arsenal is 1970s vintage and still uses 5 1/2 inch floppy disks for control systems. These need to be upgraded for both safety and reliability.
Does it still go boom ? Can we deliver it ? How many do you need? Wouldn't 1or2 be enough ?
Thank you for saying this. This is what most people fail to understand.
And Yankee, we honestly don't know if a lot of them still go boom.
Donald's just talking. Who knows if he really means it. That's how we have to roll with this asshole for the next four years.
Nuclear Weapons? No. Nuclear power? Yes.
We unlock the power of the atom and the first thing we decide to use it for is destruction. It's no wonder we can't have anything nice.
The United States created the nuclear bomb to end wars and stop them from happening. The nuclear bomb actually saves lives, the amount of people killed by the two bombs on Japan was less than the projected Allied casualties for a land invasion and this isn't counting the millions of civilians who would rush at soldiers with crude weapons due to loyalty. Plus the nuclear bomb arguably stopped WW3 from happening with the MAD doctrine. So, the nuclear bomb actually saved lives.
Like I said. Our first use was destructive. You haven't said anything that disagrees with that.
You should be grateful. Nuclear weapons completely ended the idea of a large scale land war. You can sit back comfortably knowing that you'll never be cannon fodder like our grandparents and great grandparents were in WWI and WWII. You'll probably never be drafted, and your kids will probably never be drafted.
The war was not ended on account of our nuclear threat. It was ended because of Russian entrance into the war. Read the dialogue of the council from the final talks of whether or not to surrender. Rarely is the destruction at Hiroshima mentioned as the destruction was the norm amongst firebombing.
I'll never be drafted because I'm way too old to be drafted, as are my kids.
Russia was fighting since 1941 months before the U.S. (mind you Japan surrendered in 1945), the Red Army was steamrolling through Manchuria but the Japanese weren't afraid of an island offensive by the USSR. Also why would the Japanese surrender to the U.S. whom they hated more than the USSR? Also why would they surrender over a Manchurian invasion taking place over months days after two devastating bombs hit some cities?
Honestly this was my biggest issue against Donald. I may have considered voting for him over Hillary even, IF IT WASNT FOR THE FACT I DONT TRUST HIM ANYWHERE NEAR THE NUCLEAR CODES! Lord help us
Hillary sold 20% of our uranium mining rights to Russia. And you trust her over the Donald?
Good news. Presidents don't need nuclear codes or nuclear buttons. That's just jot how the system works. Unfortunately the broader point that you don't want Trump to be able to order a nuclear attack. Can't help with that.
Never said I trusted Hilary. Just trusted her to have a steadier hand with the nukes than Trump. He might decide to blow a country off the map if they make fun of his hair or something, who knows! He's volatile and always feels the need to get revenge on his critics 100 times harder than they got him. He's like a 200+ pound, orange, overgrown 5 year old with some kind of demented narcissistic disorder
Shit, didn't mean it! Don't nuke me Donald 😳😂
Hillary blames Russia for everything and says that we need to "take action" against them. You trust HER with nukes? You have issues.
Besides the Russians will probably get the nuclear codes out of her email.
I can't even believe we're discussing this. The nuclear arms race was supposed to be over a looong time ago. We already have enough nukes to blow up the whole world and then some
The weakness of the Obama Administration (heck, even support of) with Iran,
Add NoKo being s nuclear power,
Add Hillary's sale of 20% of US uranium mining rights to Russia,
And you get a very unsafe world.
Under Obama and Killary Secy State.
I don't care who you want to blame this on, either way you cut it this freaks me out. No matter who's fault it is, we will soon have Donald Trump in charge of our nukes. You know the guy who has to hunt down and attack his every critic and get them back like a crazy narcissistic 5 year old with a vendetta ?
What's he going to do to his critics when he controls enough nuclear power to blow us all off the map ?
Modernization yes. Expansion no.
Same thing. Don't change terms around just because one makes you feel better than the other.
It should be pointed out that the momentum for this has been building for years under the direction of the Obama administration.
There's really no point... we have enough to destroy anyone we want to including ourselves. It would be redundant to add more. Just wasting money
We aren't adding more. We can't add more due to New Start constraints. We're revitalizing the enterprise. The planes and subs and much of the equipment gas been fielded for so long that soon it will be cheaper to design and build new equipment than continuing to maintain it.
The question is asking about expansion not maintenance
At this point expansion is cheaper than maintenance. Our Nuclear systems still rely on 9-track tapes and floppy disks.
Have we not learned from the past what nuclear weapons do? There's is no reason for anyone to have them but since we already do, we need to try and work on getting rid of them throughout the world if that's even still possible at this point.
The reason we have them is deterrence. There hasn't been a global war since WWII because we have them.
Ok but every other majorly developed country either already has them or is in the process of having them. Making more is going to do nothing. It's a waste of money, the money instead should be put to making more jobs or improving schools or something. Not bullshit just to scare other countries. We have the #1 military in the world and yet we're dropping in every other category.
More jobs doing what? Our nuclear systems rely on floppy disks that nobody makes anymore.
Why the heck do we want to improve schools all the time and turn out more STEM experts when liberals are on the constant hunt for STEM jobs to kill?
"Study hard and one day you can be an astronaut. Nope we canceled that, gave the money to schools. Rocket scientist, cancelled, gave the money to schools. Mining engineers make more money than any other major out of college, study hard. Nope, banned offshore drilling and environmental protesters. Gave all the money to schools. Manufacturing? Went overseas because we charge $15/hour for unskilled labor. Gave the money to schools."
First of all, we haven't sent any jobs overseas? And nobody gets paid $15 for an unskilled job and that's a principle that. Ernie sanders proposed, not every liberal. Most democrats do not want a $15 minimum wage. So do some research. Second of all, giving jobs to people to drill for oil is just going to create more problems that cost more money in the long run...if you did some research you might have know that.
If you have an issue with jobs being sent over seas...then bring t up with the people actually doing it. There's no correlation between parties and overseas companies. Stop making up bullshit to try and prove an invalid point
The revitalization of the nuclear enterprise is something Obama started before Trump was even a candidate. It would be wonderful if we all buried our weapons and sang "give peace a chance" but there are more nuclear weapons in the world now than ever. What was only theory in the cold war is fact, deterence works. Our current nuclear forces are so out dated that it would be cheaper to build new systems than continue to maintain the current systems. The cost savings you can use for schools or whatever. Building new systems will create jobs. Unlike building roads and bridges these will be high paid engineering professional jobs and a great boost to the middle class. Better than that Keynesian scheme to save the autoindustry. And the best part. Obama started the movement and Trump is going to get all the blame.
We can never get rid of nuclear weapons. Stop being naive and accept it. We can never get rid of them because we can never be completely sure that everyone else got rid of them. You don't want to be the one without a nuke when a war breaks out.
I never said we were going to get rid of them. I'm not stupid.
Only to replace what Obama has reduced before 2008.
What I think is funniest about this controversy is all the industry fairs and trade studies conducted over the last couple of years under Obama (before Trump was a candidate) and Trump gets the credit/blame because of something he said on Twitter.
Nope, waste of taxpayer money, especially when so many Americans are in poverty
Maybe they should send their job applications to all these defense contractors that are hiring.
I favor modernization not expansion. We already have the nuclear capability to annihilate the planet many times over. Increasing that is just redundant.
That's what they are doing.
They are modernizing it, or they are expanding it?
Yes. You can't modernize it without expanding it. This doesn't necessarily mean more warheads in the field.
You can't even buy computer technology currently used to target missiles. It's too old. Whatever it gets replaced with will give war planners more options, more accuracy, more security, faster response.
Those planes were made in the 60's. Whatever they get replaced with will be lighter, faster, use less fuel (and thats if we just rebuilt the old design with current materials). Then there's stealth and electronics and countermeasures.
Heck just a new fuse would make the whole world a lot safer. The US spends a lot of money overseas (like Pakistan) teaching other nuclear powers how not to have accidents with their nuclear weapons. We've got vaults full of scary what ifs we couldn't solve in the 70s we could fix.
Anyone that doesn't answer no is a lunatic.
Add president Obama to the list. Trump just tweeted about it. Obama has been spending money on it for 4 years.
Nuclear weapons or power?
(F) Yes !
What I would be favor of is a massive US effort to (by any means necessary) completely take down the world's nuclear arsenal. No group or government should ever have that much power.
I'm not sure what I fear more. My government with nuclear weapons or my government with the power to take away everyone's nuclear weapons.
We don't need any more, we can already destroy the entire planet with the amount of weapons that we have now.
I think you're confusing potential destructive power with reliability. Our arsenal is old and in desperate need of updating. It's also a safety concern.
That's true. We haven't done anything with most of our nuclear weapons for decades.
I'm all for updating our arsenal to make it safer and more reliable but in terms of expanding it, I just don't see the need
Most of those weapons aren't strategic they are in reserve. They aren't in the field ready to fire.
Absolutely not. We have enough right now.
Twice was enough.
This one of the very few military program that should be maintained and expanded.
After 40 years of disarmament you want to expand our nuclear capability? We already have enough of a capability to destroy the world many times over. Why?
We don't actually. Not all at once anyway.
I don't won't to but since Russia is we have to. Plus the Chinese North Koreans and Iranians are all doing it to.
Being able wipe out all life on the planet 10x over seems like MORE than enough. 😱
Not necessarily an expansion, but we certainly have to modernize some of the weapons systems.
I would like to see lasers weaponized and deployed from satellites to destroy any ICBMs coming our way. That would make ICBMs a waste of resources for our enemy's. Also improve the CIA's abilities to know what's really going on in enemy states.
It also makes the ICBMs a less reliable secondary retaliatory attack and makes our enemies more likely to attack first.
As Ricky Bobby would say "if you ain't first you're last". I think that's a fair statement when it comes to nukes.
He was drunk when he said that.
Realistically everybody is last when it comes to nukes. You only need a few dozen to end the world.m, we alone have thousands.
No, we have enough Nukes already, we just need to upgrade the Nuclear delivery & defense systems🇺🇸
Russia never truly dismantled its nuclear warheads. We have larger, longer distance bombs than the US. We also have "iron dome" kind of systems too, for some areas. I am sure China must as well. I hope the US does too. If not, those types of protection systems need to be developed.
Most Europeans, east or west, really care more about the nuclear power of North Korea. Right now, he does not have good capabilities but if he ever does, it will be a problem. He has enough engineering to get bombs to China, South Korea and Russia. Iran has nuclear capabilities but I'm not sure how much.
Old missiles need to be replaced with new ones but they need to be replaced.
Quite honestly though, the US needs to remove its nuclear warheads from Poland.
No, why? We already have enough nukes to make the entire planet uninhabitable many times over. Expanding our arsenal would be a big fat waste of money and resources.
Just have it ready to secretly drop where we need to on a moments notice.
What if Apple stopped research and development after the first iPhone because "its the best out there, we don't need to improve?"
Because the iPhone doesn't have the capability to destroy the planet in nuclear fire.
No. While some first strike capability should be maintained, all that is really needed to ensure our security is a strong second strike capability in the form of our nuclear submarines (which is already adequate). All expanding our first strike capabilities accomplishes is saber rattling and increasing tensions.
We definitely need a replacement for the aging Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines. The new Virginia-class subs are more of an attack sub type though they can carry limited nuclear packages.
I'd much rather our money go to a new type boomer over the F-35 project.
I'm fine with replacing aging equipment, the subs certainly need to be in good order. I'm just saying we don't need minuteman missile silos all over the country.
Has the airforce voiced concern over the B-52s? I know they are fairly old but I'm not sure the design can be improved upon so much as of yet.