Comments on: Why the U.S. is spending $1 trillion on nukes http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/2014/10/21/the-high-cost-of-keeping-nukes/ Mon, 23 Mar 2015 20:11:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: WayneMargot http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/2014/10/21/the-high-cost-of-keeping-nukes/comment-page-1/#comment-330 Sun, 26 Oct 2014 18:53:06 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/?p=1761#comment-330 How can anything be taken seriously by Reuters when such a stupid error of math has been made as pointed out by other commenters? It can’t.

]]>
By: alowl http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/2014/10/21/the-high-cost-of-keeping-nukes/comment-page-1/#comment-326 Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:10:39 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/?p=1761#comment-326 Upgrading our arsenal is necessary, but we need to downsize as well. Our warheads are mostly modern, our bombs not so much. 2 out of 3 of our delivery systems are 60’s technology. Most of our deterrence should be in nuclear submarines. Get rid of land based ICBMs altogether, and bombers should be mostly stand off cruise missile launchers. BTW, I’m an AF vet. This would be the most cost effective way for deterrence.

1500 warheads should be enough to eliminate the entire planet at least twice over.And get rid of those darn dial a yield nukes. If I’m paying for 400 KT weapons, I want every kiloton. Nukes should be big enough to deter the Ollie Norths from using them. 100 KT minimum.

]]>
By: sandy12345 http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/2014/10/21/the-high-cost-of-keeping-nukes/comment-page-1/#comment-325 Thu, 23 Oct 2014 02:52:24 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/?p=1761#comment-325 Wow. 8,000,000 miles of fence. Why bother circling DC when you could circle the entire US about 800 times?

]]>
By: OneOfTheSheep http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/2014/10/21/the-high-cost-of-keeping-nukes/comment-page-1/#comment-324 Thu, 23 Oct 2014 00:48:46 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/?p=1761#comment-324 @anacurt,

It is our sons and daughters we ask to defend this country. Since WW II the United States has been able to put on the battlefield, WHEN NECESSARY, the best of the best. Would you have that any different?

If and when the United States comes off second best in a major challenge, the rest of the world can kiss any hope of self improvement or self determination goodbye. Is that the world you want?

People like YOU would advocate the military budget go to feed the world’s hungry. That’s a no-win proposition, since the number of humans in third world hell holes traditionally expands to meet the available food supply (even though the population increase is mostly those with no land, no money, no skills, no job, no education, and no hope of any of these things). They just push their progeny with distended bellies in front of the cameras covered with flies and demand the rest of the world step forward to clean up a mess they did not make.

Of maybe you would prefer to put all that money into the educational establishment? Being smart or educated didn’t help European Jews before Hitler’s Magistrates or soldiers, which is precisely the future humanity would face without a strong U.S. military. Please.

]]>
By: Factoidz http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/2014/10/21/the-high-cost-of-keeping-nukes/comment-page-1/#comment-323 Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:16:43 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/?p=1761#comment-323 HOW ELSE could we make the elite rich besides all of these high dollar engineering projects?

]]>
By: nose2066 http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/2014/10/21/the-high-cost-of-keeping-nukes/comment-page-1/#comment-322 Wed, 22 Oct 2014 04:56:00 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/?p=1761#comment-322 So long as they don’t connect any of the nuclear lauch devices to the internet (so no hackers) and so long as they don’t use computers to automate any of the nuclear launch devices (so no program bugs), civilization might be able to survive this upgrade.

]]>
By: Bagehot http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/2014/10/21/the-high-cost-of-keeping-nukes/comment-page-1/#comment-321 Wed, 22 Oct 2014 02:12:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/?p=1761#comment-321 Much of this is mandated by treaty. It’s easy to criticize nukes, except that since 1945, none have been fired in anger, a record unmatched by even biowar. Also of note is that Britain, France, Germany and Russia have trudged through these 7 decades without firing a shot at one another. Like nuclear energy, the nuclear weapons program boasts a zero casualty rate in the U.S., a record unmatched by any industrial process in the country. Sometimes no news is good news.

]]>
By: JPro78946 http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/2014/10/21/the-high-cost-of-keeping-nukes/comment-page-1/#comment-320 Tue, 21 Oct 2014 22:07:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/?p=1761#comment-320 Hadn’t realized the DC beltway was over 333,000 miles long.

]]>
By: Renhoz http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/2014/10/21/the-high-cost-of-keeping-nukes/comment-page-1/#comment-319 Tue, 21 Oct 2014 19:37:28 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/?p=1761#comment-319 Please check your math. If it takes 8,000,000 miles of fence and you can go around the D.C. Beltway 24 times with the fence this means that the Beltway is 13 times the circumference of the Earth (25,000). No wonder nothing gets done in Washington.

Lets look at it another way, the fence could go around the earth 320 times. It could even make it to the moon and back 32 times. That D.C. Beltway must be a lot larger than I had it figured for.

I guess you cannot believe everything you read.

]]>
By: anarcurt http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/2014/10/21/the-high-cost-of-keeping-nukes/comment-page-1/#comment-318 Tue, 21 Oct 2014 17:47:54 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/?p=1761#comment-318 We don’t have money for education or medicine but the military always gets a blank check. We still occupy Japan and Germany 70 years later; does anyone think we are ever leaving Korea, Cuba, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc?

]]>