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.

(Mother Jones)   Why is the U. S. spending more on its nukes than it did during the Cold War even as it tells the world it plans to cut its arsenal?   (motherjones.com) divider line 69
    More: Interesting, Cold War, Eastern Bloc, nuclear deterrent, high explosives, nuclear missiles  
•       •       •

1588 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Feb 2013 at 11:29 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-12 10:15:20 AM  
It costs a lot of money to make nukes small, duh.
 
2013-02-12 10:17:43 AM  
I don't know. Why am I paying more for a car than I did in 1956?
 
2013-02-12 10:23:40 AM  
Follow the money. Where are they made? Where are the silos? Jobs, jobs, jobs.
 
2013-02-12 10:32:55 AM  
Hi there, let me introduce you to inflation.  Also, maintenance for older technology not only tends to be more expensive, but maintenance is probably become more frequent due to the aging of the arsenal.
 
2013-02-12 10:34:37 AM  

Vodka Zombie: I don't know. Why am I paying more for a car than I did in 1956?


Haha, no shiat, they don't even describe cost in terms of as % of budget, or adjusted for inflation or anything. And that doesn't even begin to take into account how much upkeep must be on decades old shiat under newer and much stricter safety regs.
 
2013-02-12 10:51:24 AM  
You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat, do you?
 
2013-02-12 10:54:02 AM  
Long term contracts, how the fark do they work?
 
2013-02-12 10:59:18 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer


I don't know.  I've been told that hammers are pretty effective and lethal weapons.
 
2013-02-12 11:14:14 AM  

Vodka Zombie: MaudlinMutantMollusk: You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer

I don't know.  I've been told that hammers are pretty effective and lethal weapons.


I believe you missed the quote.
 
2013-02-12 11:29:26 AM  
At a guess?  we're seeing the results of a decaying infrastructure.  we can't exactly outsource this job, and hiring US workers to do something like this means training them, making sure they've been properly vetted (along with the ENTIRE surrounding maintenance staff), paying them a decent wage and generally not being pricks to the people who keep your big apocalypse weapons in good working order.  all of that takes money, especially since our education system isn't producing people interested in doing this kind of work at anything near what we need for replacement levels.  shrinking pool of skilled/qualified workers, high value maint costs, inability to outsource to lower cost competitors....it all starts to add up after a while.
 
2013-02-12 11:29:42 AM  

GAT_00: Vodka Zombie: MaudlinMutantMollusk: You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer

I don't know.  I've been told that hammers are pretty effective and lethal weapons.

I believe you missed the quote.




static.episode39.it
Please.
 
2013-02-12 11:30:13 AM  
inflation?
 
2013-02-12 11:31:43 AM  
Questioning our nuclear arms budget is treason.
 
2013-02-12 11:31:44 AM  
It's because of Obonger's magic money printing press.  Back when Reagan was president, you could buy a whole mess of nukes for what one costs today.  You can read all about in Dr. RON PUAL's newsletter which details the coming hypermoeypocalypse that the MSM won't tell you about.
 
2013-02-12 11:32:04 AM  

Vodka Zombie: MaudlinMutantMollusk: You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer

I don't know.  I've been told that hammers are pretty effective and lethal weapons.


img359.imageshack.us
 
2013-02-12 11:32:53 AM  
Haven't read the article, but isn't that question stupid by default.

"Why am spending more on gas, even though I claim to be driving my car less?"
 
2013-02-12 11:33:23 AM  

martissimo: Vodka Zombie: I don't know. Why am I paying more for a car than I did in 1956?

Haha, no shiat, they don't even describe cost in terms of as % of budget, or adjusted for inflation or anything. And that doesn't even begin to take into account how much upkeep must be on decades old shiat under newer and much stricter safety regs.


That's interesting because if you read past the headline, that's exactly what the article is about.  But why would you read past the headline.
 
2013-02-12 11:33:31 AM  
because fark you, that's why.
 
2013-02-12 11:33:51 AM  
MotherJones, I am disappoint.  David Corn is disappont.  God is disappoint.  Mitchell Freedman, imaginary and never seen on-screen player of the 1988 Cleveland Indians from Major League, is disappoint.
 
2013-02-12 11:34:57 AM  
Well if the rest of the world is cutting their nukes the US needs more nukes to make up for them.  The anti-Christ requires a set number of nukes to destroy the world so Jesus can come back.
 
2013-02-12 11:36:06 AM  
Because Obama.
 
2013-02-12 11:37:19 AM  
Because the owner of those who make these got more greedy?
 
2013-02-12 11:37:45 AM  
Because we have to refurbish old nukes in order to maintain a credible stockpile.

The electronics and even base mechanical components are damned old on many of them.  I recall a story a few months back saying Sandia was having trouble with this exact thing since they couldn't readily find sources of vacuum tubes from that area to replace old ones in the bombs.
 
2013-02-12 11:39:02 AM  
Defense contractor CEO bonuses won't pay themselves.
 
2013-02-12 11:39:15 AM  

Weaver95: At a guess?  we're seeing the results of a decaying infrastructure.  we can't exactly outsource this job, and hiring US workers to do something like this means training them, making sure they've been properly vetted (along with the ENTIRE surrounding maintenance staff), paying them a decent wage and generally not being pricks to the people who keep your big apocalypse weapons in good working order.  all of that takes money, especially since our education system isn't producing people interested in doing this kind of work at anything near what we need for replacement levels.  shrinking pool of skilled/qualified workers, high value maint costs, inability to outsource to lower cost competitors....it all starts to add up after a while.


Not only that, but replacement parts that were perhaps once relatively common tend to become scarce.   That means you have to either locate some NOS (New Old Stock) parts, or you have to have new parts custom manufactured.  That's expensive.

I actually knew a guy who maintained nuclear warheads back in the early 1980's.  Mostly, they just ran system checks on them, and if something didn't check out (which was a rare enough even that it was noteworthy), they replaced the part.   Given the limitations on building new ones, it's entirely possible that the same warheads he helped maintain back during Reagan's first term are still in service today, 30 years later.  That means more parts are likely to fail, and parts that were common back then are likely to be very expensive today.
 
2013-02-12 11:55:09 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Because Obama.

 
2013-02-12 11:56:50 AM  

dittybopper: Weaver95: At a guess?  we're seeing the results of a decaying infrastructure.  we can't exactly outsource this job, and hiring US workers to do something like this means training them, making sure they've been properly vetted (along with the ENTIRE surrounding maintenance staff), paying them a decent wage and generally not being pricks to the people who keep your big apocalypse weapons in good working order.  all of that takes money, especially since our education system isn't producing people interested in doing this kind of work at anything near what we need for replacement levels.  shrinking pool of skilled/qualified workers, high value maint costs, inability to outsource to lower cost competitors....it all starts to add up after a while.

Not only that, but replacement parts that were perhaps once relatively common tend to become scarce.   That means you have to either locate some NOS (New Old Stock) parts, or you have to have new parts custom manufactured.  That's expensive.

I actually knew a guy who maintained nuclear warheads back in the early 1980's.  Mostly, they just ran system checks on them, and if something didn't check out (which was a rare enough even that it was noteworthy), they replaced the part.   Given the limitations on building new ones, it's entirely possible that the same warheads he helped maintain back during Reagan's first term are still in service today, 30 years later.  That means more parts are likely to fail, and parts that were common back then are likely to be very expensive today.


yup.  and again, the ENTIRE operation has to be kept in house.  no outsourcing, all custom built, made to order stuff.  not to mention it all has to be manufactured to insanely high tolerances.
 
2013-02-12 11:59:47 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Defense contractor CEO bonuses won't pay themselves.


Radioactive Lesbian Zombies haven't gotten any cheaper either.
 
2013-02-12 12:01:14 PM  
I was told our trillion dollar war machine would be revenue neutral because freedom. What gives?
 
2013-02-12 12:05:58 PM  

Vodka Zombie: MaudlinMutantMollusk: You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer

I don't know.  I've been told that hammers are pretty effective and lethal weapons.


More people have been killed by hammers in the last 10 years than nukes, so, the way I see it, hammers are more dangerous than nuclear weapons.
 
2013-02-12 12:06:44 PM  

Weaver95: yup.  and again, the ENTIRE operation has to be kept in house.  no outsourcing, all custom built, made to order stuff.  not to mention it all has to be manufactured to insanely high tolerances.


And most of it by US citizens with background checks. That gets expensive.
 
2013-02-12 12:07:53 PM  

thurstonxhowell: More people have been killed by hammers in the last 10 years than nukes, so, the way I see it, hammers are more dangerous than nuclear weapons.


Ah, Mr. LaPierre, nice of you to join us. Not often we get such high profile guests here.
 
2013-02-12 12:15:28 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer


If it was a maul that had a rocket on one end of the head, I'd buy one.
 
2013-02-12 12:16:26 PM  
FTFA: "During the Cold War, the United States spent, on average, $35 billion a year on its nuclear weapons complex. Today, it spends an estimated $55 billion."

Oh please. $35 billion in 1965 (about the middle of the Cold War) would be about $254 billion today. (Source) So, in reality we are now spending between a quarter and a fifth what we were 40 years ago. TFA fails.
 
2013-02-12 12:17:08 PM  

BitwiseShift: Marcus Aurelius: Defense contractor CEO bonuses won't pay themselves.

Radioactive Lesbian Zombies haven't gotten any cheaper either.


I never understood why they don't just eat each other.
 
2013-02-12 12:22:15 PM  

Vodka Zombie: MaudlinMutantMollusk: You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer

I don't know.  I've been told that hammers are pretty effective and lethal weapons.


jaypgreene.files.wordpress.com

The hammer is my penis.
 
2013-02-12 12:24:10 PM  
I was okay with the article until they started banging on abut NIF, yeah guess what derptard science does not work on a timetable. Sure NIF may turn out to be a bust, but it is far more likely to be the source of clean plentiful energy. I'd much rather spend money on NIF then on Iraq and Afghanistan, AKA Vietnam 2: Cold Warriors are still wrong.
 
2013-02-12 12:46:37 PM  

Lurking Fear: It costs a lot of money to make nukes small, duh.


If only we had a de-bigulator . . .
 
2013-02-12 12:47:55 PM  

GAT_00: Hi there, let me introduce you to inflation.  Also, maintenance for older technology not only tends to be more expensive, but maintenance is probably become more frequent due to the aging of the arsenal.


Done in 4.
 
2013-02-12 12:52:20 PM  
Maintenance and upkeep on that stuff is huge.  You put sophisticated electronics next to a source of ionizing radiation and let it sit for 20 years.  Still sure it's gonna work?
 
2013-02-12 12:52:27 PM  
Wed Nov. 9, 2011 3:00 AM PST ... nice
 
2013-02-12 01:02:48 PM  

HighOnCraic: Lurking Fear: It costs a lot of money to make nukes small, duh.

If only we had a de-bigulator . . .


I must be low on caffeine, because that had me in stitches...
 
2013-02-12 01:18:37 PM  
application.denofgeek.com
Because operating a secret moon base to fight off alien invaders isn't cheap?
 
2013-02-12 01:23:30 PM  
Inflation and stricter environmental guidelines than throwing it in a pit and torching it with diesel than covring it up with dirt
 
2013-02-12 01:26:33 PM  

martissimo: Vodka Zombie: I don't know. Why am I paying more for a car than I did in 1956?

Haha, no shiat, they don't even describe cost in terms of as % of budget, or adjusted for inflation or anything. And that doesn't even begin to take into account how much upkeep must be on decades old shiat under newer and much stricter safety regs.


Yeah, taking that into account $55 compared to $35 billion is a pretty good deal.
 
2013-02-12 01:27:00 PM  
GAT_00:
Hi there, let me introduce you to inflation.

It's worse than that. Not only do they not account for inflation, they assume some things that aren't correct.

You see, we don't have a "nuclear weapons budget." We have an overall military budget that rolls a lot of the costs of those nukes into other programs (missiles, aircraft, et cetera). Currently, the assumption is around 20% of military spending is nuke-weapons-related. That includes delivery systems (missiles and planes) and systems that are dedicated to those delivery systems (ballistic missile subs).

However, there's a big problem. In the depths of the Cold War, upwards of 50% of the US military budget was nuke-related (using the same ground rules). It was (and still is, apparently) a well-kept secret, but most of the folks who study that sort of thing agree that, overall, US nuclear weapons spending is far below the spending of the 1950s and 1960s. Remember also that, as a percentage of US government spending, the military budget has dropped from about 70% to about 20%...
 
2013-02-12 01:30:45 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: I was okay with the article until they started banging on abut NIF, yeah guess what derptard science does not work on a timetable. Sure NIF may turn out to be a bust, but it is far more likely to be the source of clean plentiful energy. I'd much rather spend money on NIF then on Iraq and Afghanistan, AKA Vietnam 2: Cold Warriors are still wrong.


I have yet to have someone credibly explain why the NIF is in any way an energy project. It is a means to test fuel samples to predict yield without actually testing a warhead.

I am all for both. NIF seems like it will give you great data in a controlled environment. We should also be testing the damn things. I think our arsenal will be more dangerous in another couple decades when people will seriously question whether they actually work, which is extremely bad from a deterrence POV

ITER is going to be the way forward on the Fusion front. The positive Q on smaller tokamacs should make their net energy edtimates a slam dunk
 
2013-02-12 01:39:13 PM  
Why do we need nukes?

Gotta have SOMETHING for those drones to drop on our citizens.
 
2013-02-12 01:42:21 PM  
If you'd actually like to see these missilesin person, check out Dayton, Ohio's US Air Force Museum now has a Cold War wing, complete with a giant silo containing 9 actual ICBMs:

media.cmgdigital.com
 
2013-02-12 02:02:28 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Vodka Zombie: MaudlinMutantMollusk: You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer

I don't know.  I've been told that hammers are pretty effective and lethal weapons.

[jaypgreene.files.wordpress.com image 226x341]

The hammer is my penis.


I'd rather have a shovel.

25.media.tumblr.com
 
Displayed 50 of 69 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report