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 23
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-06-16 09:10:31 PM  
3 votes:
fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net
2012-06-16 10:06:04 PM  
2 votes:
We have so many nukes no nation could possibly hit them all without a big portion getting through to obliterate the aggressor. Isn't that as good as having mobile nukes? Plus, you don't have the risk of them getting stolen or damaged in transit.

But mostly this is just a big ol' way of spending tax bucks on zero-return projects under the guise of "Keep Murika Strong!". How 'bout we have a strong America by having well-fed, healthy, employed and educated citizens with a solid infrastructure that benefits both citizens and industry? Or do we have to destroy Murika to save it?
2012-06-17 12:31:27 PM  
1 votes:

Lunaville: Good! This country doesn't spend nearly enough on the military and defense.

"This is nuts. They should just quit while theywe are behind."


FTFY. Sorry but it had to be said.

/too much of our money spent on bullshiat
//feed our people instead of killing others
2012-06-17 11:00:46 AM  
1 votes:

Basij: 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.


Neither of those systems require replacement. It is not only the systems, but the job they used to do that is obsolete.
As usual, some Farker who is utterly ignorant of military technology has appointed himself to "educate" the naive hippies.
2012-06-16 09:51:59 PM  
1 votes:
I am pretty sure we have more nukes than we could ever possibly use. I don't think we need new ones.
2012-06-16 09:42:00 PM  
1 votes:

violentsalvation: Basij: 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.

We retired the Minuteman 3's replacement because we didn't need it.


What is obsolete is the very idea of "nuclear deterrent". Who's it deterring Russia who's as broke as a joke. Plus they need us to buy there oil and natural gas. China. Lol. I'm going to kill the guy I'm completely financially dependent on. I don't think Al Qaeda is too afraid of being nuked. I think they rather like getting blown up. A dozen or so big bombs sure fine. Or just keep the arsenal a little under what would kill the planet seems I dunno reasonable. Or zero because no one has used one since 1945.
2012-06-16 09:35:41 PM  
1 votes:

Basij: 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.


We retired the Minuteman 3's replacement because we didn't need it.
2012-06-16 09:34:18 PM  
1 votes:

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


After all, those are so unreliable. Plus, we have so many enemies who we could feasibly need to use ICBMs against, right?
2012-06-16 09:31:12 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-06-16 09:26:34 PM  
1 votes:
"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 09:25:53 PM  
1 votes:
Sorry, hippies, but yes: we can't use 1960 era B52s and Minuteman 3s forever.
2012-06-16 09:12:40 PM  
1 votes:
i219.photobucket.com
2012-06-16 08:56:30 PM  
1 votes:
And who exactly are we going to be using all these nukes on again?
2012-06-16 08:18:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:52:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:39:16 PM  
1 votes:
But if you say that the defense budget is full of wasteful bullshiat, you're a Commie.
2012-06-16 07:31:35 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:25:54 PM  
1 votes:
Ah, what happens when each branch of your military is run like a separate, and competing, corporation.
2012-06-16 05:41:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:18:09 PM  
1 votes:
Who do we still need to aim ICBMs at? Damn tax and spend liberals and their rampant military spending.
2012-06-16 04:07:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:06:49 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:51:49 PM  
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report