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   (slate.msn.com) divider line 229
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

6775 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Apr 2004 at 11:28 AM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



229 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-04-24 11:02:12 PM
Time for my pro-conservative comment:

Why can't this money be better spent on paying lazy shiftless liberals for sitting around and doing nothing but collecting welfare? Aren't they entitled to this money, dammit?

But, hey, I'm sorry. The answer to this nuclear weapon problem is to just dismantle all of our nukes, and set an example for everyone else. Once we've gotten rid of every last nuke, the other people with their nukes will follow our example. I mean, why wouldn't they? We took the moral high ground, and even though it's never paid off before, it should now!
 
2004-04-24 11:05:00 PM
Facts Shamcks

Spending on education as % of GNP

1. Moldova 10.3%
2. Namibia 8.5%
3. Denmark 7.7%
4. South Africa 7.5%
5. Uzbekistan 7.4%
6. Barbados 7.3%
7. Saudi Arabia 7.2%
8. Sweden 7.1%
9. Finland 7%
10. New Zealand 6.9%
Weighted Average 7.48 %

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu_edu_spe&int=10
 
2004-04-24 11:05:35 PM
When you're deficit spending, the way to get out of it is not to cut programs, but to nickel and dime your way back to even. Because Clinton got his dong sucked he had a clear enough mind to work his way through the budget and trim where he could. This relatively small excessive expenditure in the nuclear arms budget is indicative of the way the Bush administration spends your tax dollars (and money they don't have) on all programs.

Unfortunately Bush doesn't have enough brain power to do this, even if he were to get a good pole polishing.

Whoever the president is after Bush is going to have a helluva mess to clean up...
 
2004-04-24 11:19:13 PM
United States stockpile of nuclear weapons has been decreasing every year, in fact the LARGEST reduction ever passed by in the US was by GEORGE W BUSH, and in Russia PUTIN.

SO all the liberals can STFU, they are getting rid of doomsday weapons and making more reasonable sized nukes.
 
2004-04-24 11:22:05 PM
Time for my pro-conservative comment:

Why can't this money be better spent on paying lazy shiftless liberals for sitting around and doing nothing but collecting welfare? Aren't they entitled to this money, dammit?

But, hey, I'm sorry. The answer to this nuclear weapon problem is to just dismantle all of our nukes, and set an example for everyone else. Once we've gotten rid of every last nuke, the other people with their nukes will follow our example. I mean, why wouldn't they? We took the moral high ground, and even though it's never paid off before, it should now!


Nobody is saying that we should dismantle all of our nukes. Just that this is a bad time increase spending on something that we aren't using and shouldn't plan on using in the immediate future. Maintaining the stockpile should be good enough with this ridiculous deficit.

BTW: attacking liberals by saying they just want to hand out all of the money does not validate your point, nor does it give justice to even a fraction of liberals. I'm so sick of Bush humpers is the republican party that refuse to admit he's a moron. Rush et al. really have you people brainwashed. I'm starting to lose hope for this great country.
 
2004-04-24 11:27:27 PM
Oh look a Fred Kaplan knows whats best for National Security article (and a a bunch of rabid yippies to go with it).

What this guy doesn't mention is a lot of this money is going to adequate stockpile maintiance/security and the proper cleanup of DOE nuclear weapons sites; things that were not possible under Clinton due to severe budget cuts. The DOEs Environmental Management (EM) program was one of the hardest hit during Clintons terms.

Part of the budget that Kaplan is complaining about is the setting aside of a record $7.24 billion for an accelerated version of the DOEs current cleanup program. Good news. Very good news.

This guy should really stick to what he does best, polishing Gore Vidal's greasy, sh*t covered nub.
 
2004-04-24 11:32:28 PM
Ok i didnt even read the article, but *your dog wants armageddon* is just too funny.
 
2004-04-24 11:36:22 PM
Because of NATO, Europe relys on the United States for defense. That is why they can afford expensive domestic programs.
/just sayin
 
2004-04-24 11:37:59 PM
http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh01111402.html

Bush, Putin Agree on Cutting Nuclear Arsenals
Washington, November 14, 2001

"I have informed President Putin that the United States will reduce our operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to a level between 1,700 and 2,200 over the next decade, a level fully consistent with American security," Bush said.

The U.S. arsenal includes about 6,000 such weapons.


Hes cutting the arsenal down to 1/3 of what it was!! Clinton also cutdown the aresnal but an insignificant amount

HOW CAN 2,200 nukes destory the entire planet 10 times over when it takes upto 12 warheads to level a city like New York?

 
2004-04-24 11:41:20 PM
dhakbar
God damn, Bush frightens me.

Good.
 
2004-04-24 11:45:37 PM
The article reminds me of a quote I heard regarding the nuclear arms race- It's like 2 guys standing waist deep in gasoline, one man has 5 matches, the other has 3.

Actually dropping a match in that much gasoline would put the match out.
 
2004-04-24 11:55:31 PM
>The article reminds me of a quote I heard regarding the nuclear arms race- It's like 2 guys standing waist deep in gasoline, one man has 5 matches, the other has 3.

>Actually dropping a match in that much gasoline would put the match out.

Are you sure enough that you'd be willing to try this experiment? PLEASE?

//mmmm, gasoline fumes a-splode!!
 
2004-04-25 12:04:36 AM
Heck no! ok...maybe. 5 bucks?
 
2004-04-25 12:16:30 AM
GOOD
 
2004-04-25 01:01:01 AM
Game over?
 
2004-04-25 01:07:47 AM
Awan Afuqya: HOW CAN 2,200 nukes destory the entire planet 10 times over when it takes upto 12 warheads to level a city like New York?

Oh, my mistake, and here I thought that nuclear weapons had other serious effects besides kilotonnage.
 
2004-04-25 01:28:42 AM
casaguapo
...robust nuclear earth-penetrator...

Maybe the Pentagon could start shopping at Good Vibrations... I think they may be having a sale on those things.
 
2004-04-25 01:47:25 AM
I am from New Zealand but don't understand something about American politics.

Conservatives hate tax-and-spend liberals, for their financial irresponsibility, their taking money from some people just to give it to others, their giving out other people's money as election bribes, and their general interference in the everyday lives of Americans.

Given that, why do they continue to support Bush? The extra money Americans get from tax cuts, viewed in light of the current deficit, means that Bush is borrowing money to pay for the tax cuts. Doesn't that strike the conservatives as a total violation of all of their values? I just don't get it.

Please explain.

/dumbfounded foreigner.
 
2004-04-25 01:58:18 AM
MustTryHarder

How do New Zealanders feel about immigrants? Is there room for one more? This stuff here in the USA is not making since.
 
2004-04-25 04:22:49 AM
MustTryHarder

What you have to realise is that left and right in political circles in America is totally different to what it is in the rest of the world. And as some of the biggest countries in the world are reliant on their reserves of dollars (I'm thinking China here, not sure if Japan is in the same boat), they can keep a large deficit and not really get that much of a hit in the future.
 
2004-04-25 04:26:05 AM
Liberals...
Conservatives....
Its all bullshiat...
Be a realist! Pay attention to what is actually happening. Read more than just headlines and Fox News articles. The Unites States is the most unstable, violent and impoverished than it has been since the Civil War. The only way to truely advance in any situatition is to take a step back and look at it as a whole. Stop the name calling... Stop the belly aching... And use your farking brains! I am so sick and tired of people spouting off about liberals are this... and conservatives are that...
Here is a fact:
AMERICAN POLITICS IS CORRUPT!
Period. Top to bottom.
Demorcrat and republican.
No official is acutally looking out for the people they are supposed to be representing. They are looking out for their careers and their pocket books.
It is time for people to stop looking at titles and possisions and start looking at faces and places. real numbers. real facts.
Cause let me tell you people, this world is only as good as the people in it. and right now--it stinks.
 
2004-04-25 09:16:06 AM
EvilGnome

(btw, to whoever said it, nukes are pretty damn effective against mountains. NORAD, buried quite deep in cheyenne mountain, would be wiped out in a nuclear attack.)

Not entirely true, Cheyenne Mountain was designed with a 70% probability that it will be able to survive a 5 megaton blast. Thats why the entire complex is mounted on springs.

/me watches to much Discovery :-)

Footmouse
How do New Zealanders feel about immigrants? Is there room for one more? This stuff here in the USA is not making since.

New Zealand is a pretty dificult country to emigrate to. You either already need a job over there, or you need to already have a job offer, be "of good character" be young, be a skilled worker with at least 2 years experiance. Or have a minimum of NZ$1,000,000.

So not the easiest place in the world to get into.
 
2004-04-25 11:11:33 AM
EvilGnome
Everyone has a horribly skewed view of nuclear weapons. Too much propaganda, not enough science.

It must be terribly disconcerting to be championing a viewpoint that almost everyone else sees the opposite way.

I'll try to phrase this again, in simpler terms for you to understand:

Exactly how do you propose that the so-called "Robust Earth Penetrator" will in practice be any different from current tactics, which calls for the use of a groundburst fused warhead against hardened targets? If this is not what you have in mind when you say "tactical nuclear weapons" then specify what you are referring to.

So far, you haven't shown the slightest indication of arguing from any position other than your own uninformed opinion.
 
2004-04-25 12:02:02 PM
Guys, the people currently in power **want** NEVERENDING WAR.

Consider all developments from that starting point, and their madness will all make sense. They profit from neverending war. Their political careers depend on it. That's why they frame this conflict in terms that ensure it can never be resolved. That's the reason for rhetoric like "you're with us, or you're with the terrorists". That's why they've played into our enemy's hands (attacking an oil-rich Muslim country) while driving away our allies.

It's not that they don't understand the world we live in, it's not that they're trapped in a cold-war mentality. It's that they WANT war without end. They WANT to enflame our potential enemies, they WANT to create new enemies, they WANT to make the board so complicated that it becomes a war of attrition. They want to divide thew world, they want to drive away our friends.

If you think I'm wrong (and I'm sure half of you think I am), point me to ONE strategic maneuver they've made which unambigously supports peace. Name ONE.

Before you answer, keep in mind they are about to lay seige to Najaf.

If there's a way to GUARANTEE escalation, that would be it.
 
2004-04-25 12:28:53 PM
Why is it news agencies like Drudge and Fox News are trashed immediately upon mention, but the Slate is rarely touched?
 
2004-04-25 08:26:28 PM
I'm curious; how come in an entire discussion about nuclear weapons and deterrence, I only see two mentions of North Korea, and none of Iran? Did I miss it?


edverb, about that Najaf article, what about this part?

In Baghdad, Kimmitt said it is not our understanding that we will have soldiers going into Najaf soon.
Hertling said the move aimed to increase pressure on al-Sadr and his militia.
"Its not going to be large-scale fighting, the likes of other places," he said. "But were going to drive this guy into the dirt."


It looks like they're trying to minimize the escalation as best they can. They can't just leave the city alone, or else al Sadr will continue to be a problem. The situation might escalate, but at least then we have a chance at STOPPING it.
 
2004-04-26 10:07:30 AM
VideoVader
I'm curious; how come in an entire discussion about nuclear weapons and deterrence, I only see two mentions of North Korea, and none of Iran? Did I miss it?

The United States currently has about 10,500 nuclear weapons.

Are you saying that more are required for North Korea and Iran? If so, then why?
 
2004-04-26 05:33:32 PM
Last post
 
2004-04-28 01:54:50 AM
Laster post :P
 
Displayed 29 of 229 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report