Comments on: Money for Obama’s nuclear upgrades better spent on conventional weapons http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/03/30/money-for-obamas-nuclear-upgrades-better-spent-on-conventional-weapons/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: WayneVan http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/03/30/money-for-obamas-nuclear-upgrades-better-spent-on-conventional-weapons/#comment-1129604 Thu, 31 Mar 2016 18:32:26 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=47309#comment-1129604 I totally agree with the first poster.

That is exactly why we need a viable deterrence.

Modernization of our nuclear forces is essential.

]]>
By: DontBeLate http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/03/30/money-for-obamas-nuclear-upgrades-better-spent-on-conventional-weapons/#comment-1129600 Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:44:29 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=47309#comment-1129600 Scientist Linus Pauling estimated over 60 million cancer/deaths were attributable just to humans being exposed to the radiation from above-ground nuclear tests.

That radiation STILL persists in our food, oceans, water, air, etc.

Add to that the radiation from nuclear energy power plants which spew radiation daily and nuclear meltdowns like Chernobyl and Fukushima which have added to “background” radiation.

Now you know the reason for the high cases of cancer in countries with nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants.

Humans do not do well being exposed to nuclear radiation.

The cost in terms of money and in human health are astronomical.

]]>