If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Wonk)   Air Force weighing up options for next-gen U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles, including a 1980's plan for a $30 billion fleet of armored mobile nuke-launchers. That's $52 billion in today's dollars, in case you were wondering   (lewis.armscontrolwonk.com) divider line 97
    More: Asinine, U.S. Air Force, intercontinental ballistic missiles, United States, arms controls, disarmament, request for information, launch vehicle  
•       •       •

1460 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jun 2012 at 7:19 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



97 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-16 03:51:49 PM
I have no real idea of the need for such missiles, but 52 billion does not factor in the inevitable cost over-runs and design changes while the program is being implemented. To get anything near a real cost you need to look at other recent (last 15-20 years) large defense programs and see what the average cost over-runs of those systems were to get something closer to the true cost and completion time. And I said close, not completely accurate.
 
2012-06-16 04:06:49 PM
It's too bad our nuclear submarine fleet is so vulnerable that we need this boondoggle. If only the Soviets hadn't tracked and sunk so many of our boomer subs during the Cold War.

If only.
 
2012-06-16 04:07:33 PM

Steve Zodiac: I have no real idea of the need for such missiles, but 52 billion does not factor in the inevitable cost over-runs and design changes while the program is being implemented. To get anything near a real cost you need to look at other recent (last 15-20 years) large defense programs and see what the average cost over-runs of those systems were to get something closer to the true cost and completion time. And I said close, not completely accurate.


It's all cost-plus contracts. Which is Socialist...
 
2012-06-16 04:09:54 PM
Why the f**k would they do that?
 
2012-06-16 04:18:09 PM
Who do we still need to aim ICBMs at? Damn tax and spend liberals and their rampant military spending.
 
2012-06-16 05:15:32 PM

Mugato: Who do we still need to aim ICBMs at? Damn tax and spend liberals and their rampant military spending.


Look at everything south and east of Europe. So many shades of brown people. So little time.
 
2012-06-16 05:31:12 PM
What the hell do we need that for?
 
2012-06-16 05:34:36 PM

Marcus Aurelius: It's too bad our nuclear submarine fleet is so vulnerable that we need this boondoggle. If only the Soviets hadn't tracked and sunk so many of our boomer subs during the Cold War.

If only.


You want to know what's wrong with our missile subs? THEY BELONG TO THE GODDAMNED NAVY

/how is the Air Force supposed to have any fun if they can't get in on blowing up the world?
 
2012-06-16 05:41:31 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Marcus Aurelius: It's too bad our nuclear submarine fleet is so vulnerable that we need this boondoggle. If only the Soviets hadn't tracked and sunk so many of our boomer subs during the Cold War.

If only.

You want to know what's wrong with our missile subs? THEY BELONG TO THE GODDAMNED NAVY

/how is the Air Force supposed to have any fun if they can't get in on blowing up the world?


They're just pissed that they're not supposed to put nukes on the XB-37. They're stuck with B-52s and B-1s and B-2s.

But much more likely is that senators from Arizona and New Mexico and Texas and elsewhere are hankering for a few billions dollars in new "defense spending".
 
2012-06-16 06:25:54 PM
Ah, what happens when each branch of your military is run like a separate, and competing, corporation.
 
2012-06-16 07:26:36 PM

FloydA: Why the f**k would they do that?


FloydA: Why the f**k would they do that?


The Russians tested a new one recently. But, in general, I agree.

As for TFA, your blog, math sucks.
 
2012-06-16 07:31:14 PM
I thought only 2nd rate, almost bankrupt, backasswards communist dictatorships had their missiles on the backs of tractor trailers..........oh, yeah, nevermind. I guess we do need some of those.
 
2012-06-16 07:31:35 PM

FloydA: Why the f**k would they do that?


Don't you want a mobile nuclear launcher of your very own? Soon as they're made, they'll be on the black market in a week or two.

Hm. That could be bad, actually. I'll have to think about it.
 
2012-06-16 07:39:16 PM
But if you say that the defense budget is full of wasteful bullshiat, you're a Commie.
 
2012-06-16 07:39:56 PM

badhatharry: I thought only 2nd rate, almost bankrupt, backasswards communist dictatorships had their missiles on the backs of tractor trailers..........oh, yeah, nevermind. I guess we do need some of those.


So, you don't know what the words 'communist' and 'dictatorship' mean. Good to know.
 
2012-06-16 07:42:13 PM
"The Hard Mobile Launcher was judged too expensive during the largest peacetime defense buildup in history with the Soviet Union as an adversary. What makes the Air Force think a neo-HML will survive our budget-constrained, post-Cold War environment?"


Translation: Guys. GUYS, LISTEN -- Even the Teabaggers are gonna hate this shiat. Not gonna happen.
 
2012-06-16 07:43:43 PM
Good! This country doesn't spend nearly enough on the military and defense.

"This is nuts. They should just quit while they are behind."
 
2012-06-16 07:44:43 PM
This is the Hard Mobile Launcher (HML)

Not to be confused with the Flimsy Mobile Launcher or "FML".
 
2012-06-16 07:52:20 PM

fusillade762: This is the Hard Mobile Launcher (HML)

Not to be confused with the Flimsy Mobile Launcher or "FML".


Flimsy Air ICBM Launcher = FAIL.
 
2012-06-16 07:53:43 PM

LordJiro: But if you say that the defense budget is full of wasteful bullshiat, you're a Commie.


But I thought government spending created jobs. Isn't that what you liberals are always promoting, spending money extracted from hardworking taxpayers for whatever "important national priorities" they decide are more essential than individuals' right to their own property?

/there, hired trolls, you can take a break, get some lunch, look for a job that doesn't involve spreading propaganda points
 
2012-06-16 07:57:02 PM

Marcus Aurelius: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Marcus Aurelius: It's too bad our nuclear submarine fleet is so vulnerable that we need this boondoggle. If only the Soviets hadn't tracked and sunk so many of our boomer subs during the Cold War.

If only.

You want to know what's wrong with our missile subs? THEY BELONG TO THE GODDAMNED NAVY

/how is the Air Force supposed to have any fun if they can't get in on blowing up the world?

They're just pissed that they're not supposed to put nukes on the XB-37. They're stuck with B-52s and B-1s and B-2s.

But much more likely is that senators from Arizona and New Mexico and Texas and elsewhere are hankering for a few billions dollars in new "defense spending".


It's not like the XB-37 won't be used as a bomber if it's convenient. I'd pretty much guarantee that there's some "Completely unaffiliated" program to design a warhead that can be dropped from some sort of "hypothetical" space bomber and the warheads they develop will (by sure coincidence of course) be held in a warehouse twenty feet from the military shuttle.
 
2012-06-16 07:57:26 PM

Mugato: Who do we still need to aim ICBMs at?


Those damn sneaky commies!
 
2012-06-16 07:58:59 PM
Those look cool! I've been looking for an upgrade to the SUV. Something that was a little more stable in snow and mud and was maybe a tad more blast proof. I wonder what the highway mileage is.
 
2012-06-16 08:06:32 PM
$52 billion? That's nearly six months of spending on The War Aganst Terror in Afghanistan. Where's that money going to come from? Tax cuts, or China?
 
2012-06-16 08:08:23 PM
Better proposed plan for mobile ICBMs from the 80s:

i.imgur.com

Peacekeeper Rail Garrison Car
 
2012-06-16 08:08:38 PM

Mr. Eugenides: Those look cool! I've been looking for an upgrade to the SUV. Something that was a little more stable in snow and mud and was maybe a tad more blast proof. I wonder what the highway mileage is.


Who cares? I bet they'd be great for picking up women, too

/Hey, baby... want to ride on my HML?
 
2012-06-16 08:09:20 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Marcus Aurelius: It's too bad our nuclear submarine fleet is so vulnerable that we need this boondoggle. If only the Soviets hadn't tracked and sunk so many of our boomer subs during the Cold War.

If only.

You want to know what's wrong with our missile subs? THEY BELONG TO THE GODDAMNED NAVY

/how is the Air Force supposed to have any fun if they can't get in on blowing up the world?


Pretty much. Plus the Navy has so many of the suckers they're turning the older ones into SSGNs.

Personally I'd prefer to get behind the SSBN-X: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSBN-X_future_follow-on_submarine

Assuming the Navy can honestly get the cost down to below 5 billion a unit, a fleet of 8 to 12 wouldn't be all that expensive. Especially when you pay over a decade for the things.
 
2012-06-16 08:14:44 PM
I r,ember when I was doing research for the department of deep pockets. The keywords from superiors where,
He have a hard time spending all that money, we struggle to look for ways.
And
We can get rid of the money fast enough
And
If you have to waste time and money, waste money.

Now, I'll confess, the last one does appeal to me, because given unlimited resources...money...we could really accomplish a great deal. The only problem is when the accolsihment was to end life not make it better.
 
2012-06-16 08:18:00 PM

ha-ha-guy: Assuming the Navy can honestly get the cost down to below 5 billion a unit, a fleet of 8 to 12 wouldn't be all that expensive. Especially when you pay over a decade for the things.


Assuming we could instead use the money for teachers, cops, firefighters, potholes, bridges, water treatment plants, etc, a fleet of 8 to 12 would be immensely expensive.
 
2012-06-16 08:22:58 PM

LordJiro: badhatharry: I thought only 2nd rate, almost bankrupt, backasswards communist dictatorships had their missiles on the backs of tractor trailers..........oh, yeah, nevermind. I guess we do need some of those.

So, you don't know what the words 'communist' and 'dictatorship' mean. Good to know.


It worked better as a joke. We are actually more of a weird kind of fascist dictatorship.
 
2012-06-16 08:28:12 PM
I'm seriously starting to wonder if the people at the Pentagon have been watching Evangelion and trying to emulate NERV's approach to pointless defense spending.
 
2012-06-16 08:36:24 PM

Strolpol: I'm seriously starting to wonder if the people at the Pentagon have been watching Evangelion and trying to emulate NERV's approach to pointless defense spending.


I remember watching all those anime series and watching countless cities being destroyed, and all I could think was, "How much of their GDP is Japan wasting on the military? It's like, every building is a weapon! No wonder their economy is in the toilet!"

/Economics: It's a mental disease
 
2012-06-16 08:37:25 PM
Why bother? One man will end up disabling them all anyway.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-06-16 08:37:27 PM

badhatharry: LordJiro: badhatharry: I thought only 2nd rate, almost bankrupt, backasswards communist dictatorships had their missiles on the backs of tractor trailers..........oh, yeah, nevermind. I guess we do need some of those.

So, you don't know what the words 'communist' and 'dictatorship' mean. Good to know.

It worked better as a joke. We are actually more of a weird kind of fascist dictatorship.


You do realize that fascists and communists are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, right?

Oh wait, you STILL don't know what words mean, and you're just spewing buzzwords that you've been told are synonyms for "bad". How do Limbaugh's boots taste, anyway?
 
2012-06-16 08:37:43 PM
Why Amerika failed: Pt. 2617
 
2012-06-16 08:38:30 PM
31 comments in and not one mention of this? For shaaaame.

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-06-16 08:45:01 PM
Let's buy the launchers from countries where the labor costs are cheaper. China, perhaps? Hell, why don't we give India a crack at it? The launchers might not work right, but at least we would save a ton of money on them.
 
2012-06-16 08:51:25 PM
The 80s version looked like this, in case anyone is curious:

images.wikia.com
 
2012-06-16 08:52:25 PM

LordJiro: badhatharry: LordJiro: badhatharry: I thought only 2nd rate, almost bankrupt, backasswards communist dictatorships had their missiles on the backs of tractor trailers..........oh, yeah, nevermind. I guess we do need some of those.

So, you don't know what the words 'communist' and 'dictatorship' mean. Good to know.

It worked better as a joke. We are actually more of a weird kind of fascist dictatorship.

You do realize that fascists and communists are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, right?

Oh wait, you STILL don't know what words mean, and you're just spewing buzzwords that you've been told are synonyms for "bad". How do Limbaugh's boots taste, anyway?


You are mistaken. I would try to explain but you sound like a real idiot.
 
2012-06-16 08:56:30 PM
And who exactly are we going to be using all these nukes on again?
 
2012-06-16 08:58:57 PM
Dear Congress,

Give us whatever we want or you will die and freedom will die.

your pals,

The Pentagon.
 
2012-06-16 09:08:05 PM

Strolpol: I'm seriously starting to wonder if the people at the Pentagon have been watching Evangelion and trying to emulate NERV's approach to pointless defense spending.


Defense. Yeah. It was better when they were honest and called it the Dept. of War.
 
2012-06-16 09:10:31 PM
fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net
 
2012-06-16 09:10:53 PM
Metal Gear !?!?!?!
 
2012-06-16 09:12:40 PM
i219.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-16 09:22:59 PM

Hobodeluxe: [fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net image 403x403]


That's all fine until we destroy their 3rd world economies giving them free food and they decide to attack us for it.

Teach a man to fish...
 
2012-06-16 09:25:53 PM
Sorry, hippies, but yes: we can't use 1960 era B52s and Minuteman 3s forever.
 
2012-06-16 09:26:34 PM
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals."

-- Some liberal, pinko, socialist...
 
2012-06-16 09:27:40 PM

Basij: Sorry, hippies, but yes: we can't use 1960 era B52s and Minuteman 3s forever.


Weak.
 
2012-06-16 09:31:12 PM

Mugato: Basij: Sorry, hippies, but yes: we can't use 1960 era B52s and Minuteman 3s forever.

Weak.


Or as some of us refer to it, reality. These weapon systems are dated. Their approaching the point of obsolesce. It's time to begin planning their replacements.
 
Displayed 50 of 97 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report