U. S.Nuclear Forces rearmament programs
- Thread starter spacearrow99
- Start date
http://graphics.latimes.com/missile-defense/
The U. S. Defense Department wastes much money each year on high end defense programs. The nuclear rearmament programs mentioned above will be very expensive, but they should work since we are using proven technology.
The U. S. Defense Department wastes much money each year on high end defense programs. The nuclear rearmament programs mentioned above will be very expensive, but they should work since we are using proven technology.
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2016/07/12-long-range-stand-off-weapon-pifer
"Some LRSO proponents cite the relatively “small” cost to argue that the defense budget can afford it. Current Pentagon officials, however, say they have no idea how to pay for everything they want for strategic modernization. Given the rising cost of mandatory spending such as social security and Medicare, and the pressure to hold down the deficit, the budget problem will not become easier in the 2020s, when the “bow-wave” of strategic modernization spending arrives. The Air Force will likely find itself having to choose between B-21s, KC-46 tankers, F-35 fighters, and the LRSO. It also wants to buy a new ICBM then. It is hard to see how all of that will be affordable."
"Some LRSO proponents cite the relatively “small” cost to argue that the defense budget can afford it. Current Pentagon officials, however, say they have no idea how to pay for everything they want for strategic modernization. Given the rising cost of mandatory spending such as social security and Medicare, and the pressure to hold down the deficit, the budget problem will not become easier in the 2020s, when the “bow-wave” of strategic modernization spending arrives. The Air Force will likely find itself having to choose between B-21s, KC-46 tankers, F-35 fighters, and the LRSO. It also wants to buy a new ICBM then. It is hard to see how all of that will be affordable."
Yeah, the cost of Medicare ansd social security is a heavy burden on the budget and because of that, the US can't give the military the money they need to buy all the stuff they need...
Yeah, the cost of Medicare ansd social security is a heavy burden on the budget and because of that, the US can't give the military the money they need to buy all the stuff they need...
Can't see how they can afford something????
Our military leaders are a smug bunch.
The Federal government's charge is to provide for the common defense, not feed and clothe the poor.
A 21st century government's charge, responsibility, or priority should not be 'solely' determined by an 18th century document. Oh and feeding, caring, educating all it's people is the country's common defense!
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USNuclearModernization
Trident II D5 is projected stay in service for over 50 years. The D5 needs to be replaced in the 5 to 10 years, but we have to many large, and expense defense programs in coming the decades.
Trident II D5 is projected stay in service for over 50 years. The D5 needs to be replaced in the 5 to 10 years, but we have to many large, and expense defense programs in coming the decades.
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
Yes. Even though with all the money they have more could be done.
One thing is make an actual budget and term limits.
Let's not start. :tongue:
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Not true. From the preamble to the constitution:
You need to refer to the entire statement before making such a claim since "provid(ing) for the common defense" and "promo(tion) of the general welfare" are equal responsibilities of the government if we take the statement literally....which we should. The broader and more specific interpretation of each tenet is where the argument emanates.
I don't get why you need more nukes.
You can't use them against a country with nukes as well, since you're talking about Mutual Assured Destruciton on Nuclear scale.
You can't use them against a country without nukes as you're painting yourself as the bad guy. The BS "It saves US lives" argument won't fly in today's age.
Their only real use is as a deterrent, and you don't need more than a handful for that purpose - see North Korea. The only legitimized use would be if there was an all out war declared on the US, and let's face it, looking at that pie-chart above what country would be willing to do that?
You can't use them against a country with nukes as well, since you're talking about Mutual Assured Destruciton on Nuclear scale.
You can't use them against a country without nukes as you're painting yourself as the bad guy. The BS "It saves US lives" argument won't fly in today's age.
Their only real use is as a deterrent, and you don't need more than a handful for that purpose - see North Korea. The only legitimized use would be if there was an all out war declared on the US, and let's face it, looking at that pie-chart above what country would be willing to do that?
Because Trump plans on using them :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSnVb4i_ZZ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O13kaQAg5KE
babybattersplatter
Banned
JUST where does the TRUMP WALL fit in here
We need some aliens to show up and take over
China will become a superpower. The Chinese government like the Russian government own all their major defense companies. Both countries built military equipment at much cheaper coast than the U. S. The rate Chinese can build major military vessels is scary. PLAN Type 052D destroyer are being built at a alarming rate. The U.S. could reopen Subic Bay and move the 7th Fleet to Subic Bay to counter Chinese in the South China Sea, but that would be a short term answer. In about 9 to 10 years from now, it is projected that China will spend more on defense than U.S.
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2016/08/those-chinese-islands-are-gonna-be.html
I 'm going to call Russia a Eurasian superpower. Russia cannot project power around the globe like the Soviet Union. But the Forces they can mass in Russian Asia and Europe are unmatched. In 2020, the U.S. Army will have 30 maneuver brigades. The Russian will have 21 maneuver brigades in its Western Military District. They have 4 other Military Districts to get reinforcements, and the those forces will arrive much quicker by train than by ship from the U. S.
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2016/08/those-chinese-islands-are-gonna-be.html
I 'm going to call Russia a Eurasian superpower. Russia cannot project power around the globe like the Soviet Union. But the Forces they can mass in Russian Asia and Europe are unmatched. In 2020, the U.S. Army will have 30 maneuver brigades. The Russian will have 21 maneuver brigades in its Western Military District. They have 4 other Military Districts to get reinforcements, and the those forces will arrive much quicker by train than by ship from the U. S.
But even in those interviews Trump says nukes are a last resort, and (arguably) the only reason he isn't saying he wouldn't use them is to not embolden the enemy. I can understand him in that respect. I don't remember Clinton (or any presidential nominee) ever stating they would never use nukes, and it's basically for the same reason.
I'm not saying that I'm 100% confident he wouldn't give the order to ever use them, but I'm sure his staff would talk him out of any really dumb situations.
China already is a superpower. The problem with China is, that like Russia, they're using their military to bully their neighbours. They're feuding with practically every East/South-East Asian country over maritime rights, and sending those ships you're talking about to throw their weight around.
Similar threads
