Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Slate)   Current US spending on nuclear weapons equal to that of the height of the cold war. Your dog wants armageddon   ( divider line
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

6791 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Apr 2004 at 11:28 AM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

229 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

2004-04-24 11:31:08 AM  
We finally found the WMD!
2004-04-24 11:31:32 AM  

/what? me worry....
2004-04-24 11:32:01 AM  
Your people want improved education and social programs.
2004-04-24 11:32:45 AM  
So does this mean Hans Blix comes to search for our WMD?
2004-04-24 11:33:17 AM  
Deterence... its for deterence people... oh, wait.
2004-04-24 11:33:53 AM  
Without this much funding, we'd never invent a weapon who's blast radius exceeds its range.
2004-04-24 11:35:22 AM  
Better use em before you all fall to the flouride in your water!
2004-04-24 11:37:14 AM  
Measured in "real dollars" (that is, adjusting for inflation), this year's spending on nuclear activities is equal to what Ronald Reagan spent at the height of the U.S.-Soviet standoff. It exceeds by over 50 percent the average annual sum ($4.2 billion) that the United States spentagain, in real dollarsthroughout the four and a half decades of the Cold War.

G.W.: Hey, look at our shiny missle defense system. Pay no attention to the "nuculer" weapon program behind the curtain. (Not part of these figures, btw, that's extra money.)

I really believe this administration is trying to leave some sort of legacy. I just don't think they care what that legacy will be. Destruction appears to be as good as peace in their eyes.
2004-04-24 11:37:53 AM  
Does it take into account inflation?
2004-04-24 11:38:41 AM  
Your people want improved education and social programs.

We already spend the most per student out of all the countries in the world (IIRC, if not we're in the top 10), throwing money at a problem is obviously not the answer.
2004-04-24 11:39:14 AM  
It's cause we're gonna get bite-size nukes. GO USA.
2004-04-24 11:40:53 AM  
"The report raises anew a question that always springs to mind after a close look at the U.S. military budget: What the hell is going on here? Specifically: Do we really need to be spending this kind of money on nuclear weapons? What role do nuclear weapons play in 21st-century military policy? How many weapons do we need, to deter what sort of attack or to hit what sorts of targets, with what level of confidence, for what strategic and tactical purposes?"

Good questions... really! What's the point of all this?
2004-04-24 11:41:39 AM  
This is comforting to me.
2004-04-24 11:43:25 AM  
so if they stop spending as much, people lose their jobs on the assembly lines, factories, labs, etc... right?
2004-04-24 11:44:43 AM  
in respone to "Your people want improved education and social programs.", SquirrelWithLargeNuts claims:

We already spend the most per student out of all the countries in the world (IIRC, if not we're in the top 10), throwing money at a problem is obviously not the answer.

you're a GENIUS! you just definitively explained WHY WE SHOULD NOT BE BUILDING ALL THESE NUKES

/sword cuts both ways
2004-04-24 11:44:53 AM  
This is FUN isn't it? We're all gonna DIE aren't we?

- Otto
2004-04-24 11:47:16 AM  
you're a GENIUS! you just definitively explained WHY WE SHOULD NOT BE BUILDING ALL THESE NUKES

At least you're getting a product from that, rather than wasting money.
2004-04-24 11:47:54 AM  
We must protect the purity of our precious bodily fluids.
2004-04-24 11:48:40 AM  
What's wrong with this? Money spent is money invested.

The irony, of course, is that they're building _bombs_. You know, the ultimate depreciable asset.
2004-04-24 11:50:02 AM  
I want Nulcear Weapons because they give us kickass bragging rights. I mean think about it. China can't top us. Russia can't top us. Nor can any of the other pussy countries with limited stockpiles. This is golden I tell you. Golden.
2004-04-24 11:50:37 AM  
It's simple: military spending = government spending on private sector. Without this massive flow of public funds to private industries, American corporations like GM, Boeing, Motorola, and Intel would be deprived of an enormous corporate teet.

Next time someone tells you how the Apollo project led to the development of the microprocessor, etc, remember that NASA is a division of the Airforce.
2004-04-24 11:50:43 AM  
[image from too old to be available]

I do not avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence.
2004-04-24 11:51:25 AM  
Bye bye U.S., Hello Canada
2004-04-24 11:54:13 AM  
from the article,

" Yet the Department of Energy is spending an astonishing $6.5 billion on nuclear weapons this year"

We are chewing through 5 billion a month on the Iraq war.

Solution no more war
/that is all
2004-04-24 11:56:26 AM  
Every other damned government program goes up on autopilot and you granola-munching loons don't have a problem with it, so accept this as a cost of having your perpetually-growing federal government and STFU.
2004-04-24 11:56:41 AM  
where are the nutty bastards that want to turn the Middle East into a big sheet o' glass?
2004-04-24 11:57:14 AM  
These guys need to be run out of Washington on a rail. I mean WTF?!? We're in the worst recession we've seen in years, huge deficits...
2004-04-24 11:58:23 AM  
1. At the rate we're making enemies, I guess they figure we'll need 'em.

2. They're stocking up for Armageddon, to wipe out all those demons!

3. This not news.(somebody was gonna say it eventually)

4. Ahhhh, sweet, sweeeet November can't come fast enough, can it?
2004-04-24 12:01:31 PM  
Witness the power of this fully operational battlestation
2004-04-24 12:02:05 PM  
OMG nuclear weapons!!! Bush lied, knew, mission accomplished blah blah blah......
2004-04-24 12:02:39 PM  
I think my dog has better taste in films than that.
2004-04-24 12:03:28 PM  
SquirrelWithLargeNuts: Don't think the US is top or in the top ten for education expenditure.( - Number 47 on that list)
2004-04-24 12:04:27 PM  
We should build them in India and China. We'd save a bundle.
2004-04-24 12:05:41 PM  
To the darkened skies once more,
and ever onward.
2004-04-24 12:07:30 PM  
"... so accept this as a cost of having your perpetually-growing federal government and STFU."

No, I don't think I'll do that! I think I'll join the majority of peeps who are gonna vote that lying, stupid, ignorant, fascist, war-mongering retard out! You see, in a democracy, you don't have to just 'take it'. You don't have to 'STFU'. What refrrring to is a totalitarian dictatorship. If that's where you want to live, go find one.
2004-04-24 12:09:08 PM  
Current US spending on nuclear weapons equal to that of the height of the cold war. ...

...And none of these doomsday weapons will protect us from men with box cutters who want to hijack plnes, and fly them into buildings. They won't protect us from the next Timothy McVeigh or John Allen Muhammed either. They are boondoggles.
2004-04-24 12:09:42 PM  
Just when I thought the Bush Administration couldn't get any worse, they come up with some new way to terrify me..

They're building and upgrading nukes because they want to USE the freakin things!
2004-04-24 12:11:10 PM  
with 20 years of inflation? Okay.
2004-04-24 12:11:55 PM  
your dog wants you to stop using this cliche
2004-04-24 12:12:00 PM  
Well, I would rather have the old nukes we have modernized than have 40 year old bombs in questionable working order sitting somewhere in the US.

And further, both education and weapons are investments in the future. Weapons are investments for our own security, and education is an investment in the future workforce.
2004-04-24 12:15:09 PM  
Yes it does take into account inflation.

Do these guys in power wish for the good ol days of the Cold War or what? Wow, it is amazing. First, we need those missile defense systems because someone might lob a missile at us and we might see it coming. They'd never do something like fly a plane into one of our government buildings.

Oh, oh, and let's allow them to protect us by monitoring what we do online, in libraries, at the grocery store.

We need this type of mindset out of our offices of power. I guess we voted them there, but they have pointed the way straight to a bad ending. I hope they realize that they, or their children, will reep what they are sowing. And dammit, I don't want to be rewarded by these short sited actions, and I don't want my children to, either.

/ need coffee
2004-04-24 12:17:47 PM  
How quickly we forget the past. Don't they remember how we built all those bombs during the Cold War and then there was a massive nuclear holocaust that killed 5 Billion people in 6 minutes and 47 seconds, and then the few remaining survivors were forced to fight each other in the wastelands for the last remaining fuel sources, in order to power their V8 muscle cars and dune buggies? Maybe it won't happen in our lifetime, but I guarentee that our children will be harvesting pig crap for Tina Turner and fighting roving bands of gay bikers if we don't do something now!
2004-04-24 12:18:32 PM  
2004-04-24 12:19:15 PM  
why, pray tell, are we still making those things? Wouldn't the world be a better place if we just, i dunno, scraped them already?
2004-04-24 12:19:34 PM  
Weapons are investments for our own security, and education is an investment in the future workforce,

I'm not positive that having this many nuclear bombs is making us any more secure than if we only had a few dozen, especially considering the fact that the most horrendous attacks against the united sates in the past fifty years have come from terrorists weilding little more than homemade explosives, box cutters, and a tremendous force of will.

As for education being an investment in a future "workforce"? Whatever gets you on board.
2004-04-24 12:20:54 PM  
Everybody say it with me:


Read the article.
2004-04-24 12:25:32 PM  
The US has a 97%'nt that kind of disturbing? ... Every 30th person or so does not know how to read ...

Youp, money on nukes. Totally what the nation needs. And also, LarryDan43 , although money from the state into the private sector is a good way of keeping jobs it does not meen that you HAVE to put the money into weaponry that will (hopefully) never be used. How about other technologies usable by the broad public? Books, Cars and such? Or, *shudder*, health care. Just the notion that you have to have an expensive healthinsurance to get medical aid is just frightening.

Not that I technically should have any say, seeing as I'm not even american. But, as one of the countries that does not have nukes I must say I'm intrigued by the notion that someone should feel their presence reassuring. I can think of no more effective agitating factor than weaponry. Now, i have opened up for the possibility to rant on about weaponregualtion, and that silly "right to bear arms" thingy. But I wont. Rant
2004-04-24 12:25:39 PM  

Hey, a war economy is better than no economic plan at all.

Isn't it?
2004-04-24 12:28:28 PM  
The Department of Energy's mission is a difficult one. It has to prove to the rest of the world that the weapons in our stockpile do in fact still work. When they stop believing that, deterrence is out the window. Since we can no longer put one of these weapons in a hole and let it do its thing, we have to come up with new and creative methods of testing.
Along the way, there's a lot of good science being done with that money. Both the fusion programs at Lawrence Livermore and Sandia National Laboratories are run on this money. Only about 30% of the experiments run at these facilities pertain directly to weapons studies. The rest goes to understanding fusion, plasmas and astrophysics. Seven of the world's ten fastest supercomputers (including 2 kickarse Linux clusters) were built by the DOE. You can't tell me that the work being done there doesn't contribute in great measure to human knowledge. The DOE's stockpile stewardship is the primary way the US government subsidizes science.
And about the tritium production accelerator that Mr. Kaplan was railing against: Tritium has a half-life of 12 years. It has not been produced in this country for weapons purposes since 1988 when the K Reactor at Savannah River Site in South Carolina was shut down. If we sit on our laurels and don't produce more, we lose it. No tritium, no boom.
2004-04-24 12:32:41 PM  

Witness the power of this fully operational battlestation"

If my memory serves me correctly that's a GI Joe cartoon reference? :)

PS. bush sucks
Displayed 50 of 229 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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.