One Way to cut Defense spending Big Time.

[Charles_Main]

One way we can Cut Defense spending, and something I have to give Props to Obama for, is to seriously cut our Nuclear weapons arsenal.

Currently we have 9600 Weapons of 10 Major different kinds. With todays Targeting Technology, and our Conventional Military Power, that is a ridiculously high number. I believe as long as we maintain the ability to deliver Nuclear weapons anywhere any time, we could get by with a fraction of that number. Perhaps 5 or 6 Hundred Bombs. Mainly Based on Subs, and Ships, or air droped versions instead of the more costly ICBM's.

I give Props to Obama for wanting to talk about Reducing them.

Those Nuclear weapons did not only cost a lot to make, they cost a lot to maintain. Not only in security, and testing, but as they age the Nuclear fuel in them degrades and eventually has to be replaced.

Some estimates put the cost of Maintaining our Nuclear arsenal at 30% of our entire defense budget. So there is a lot of savings to be had by just stream lining it.

 

[Paulie]

One way we can Cut Defense spending, and something I have to give Props to Obama for, is to seriously cut our Nuclear weapons arsenal.

Currently we have 9600 Weapons of 10 Major different kinds. With todays Targeting Technology, and our Conventional Military Power, that is a ridiculously high number. I believe as long as we maintain the ability to deliver Nuclear weapons anywhere any time, we could get by with a fraction of that number. Perhaps 5 or 6 Hundred Bombs. Mainly Based on Subs, and Ships, or air droped versions instead of the more costly ICBM's.

I give Props to Obama for wanting to talk about Reducing them.

Those Nuclear weapons did not only cost a lot to make, they cost a lot to maintain. Not only in security, and testing, but as they age the Nuclear fuel in them degrades and eventually has to be replaced.

Some estimates put the cost of Maintaining our Nuclear arsenal at 30% of our entire defense budget. So there is a lot of savings to be had by just stream lining it.

My job in the Air Force was maintaining ICBM's. You work 16 hour days, so the military is getting double time out of you for standard pay. An individual only works 3 days a week, but everyday there's a team out in the field working. There's 3 different types of maintenance teams for ICBM's, and there's a TON of expensive equipment that goes into it. A missile site alone costs tens of millions, and then there's transport and other equipment. This is only ICBM's, too. I have no clue about the details of other nuclear programs. There's 500 Minuteman ICBM's located throughout several different states. There probably doesn't need to be that many.

I agree with you. Our arsenal was built mostly out of an arms race that really shouldn't be considered relevant anymore. I always looked at it like my job was pointless because should it ever have to be utilized, it would literally be the end of the world. It does serve as a deterrent, but do we need THAT MUCH to deter? The old Peacekeeper ICBM arsenal we used to have at FE Warren AFB was 50 ICBM's that could have taken out the entire eastern seaboard on their OWN.

We could probably turn the entire collection of land on this planet into a wasteland, and still have enough left to rebuild and remain the superpower when everyone that's left comes back up from underground.

 

[Chris]

Eisenhower warned about the dangers of the military industrial complex.

Two nuclear submarines could probably wipe out 75% of Russia's industrial capacity.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Eisenhower warned about the dangers of the military industrial complex.

Two nuclear submarines could probably wipe out 75% of Russia's industrial capacity.

Unless of course Russia SANK them. Or they were in port for repairs. Or they broke down.

Lets just cut our own throats while Russia builds up again, GREAT plan.

 

[wimpy77]

i actually agree with charles on something

 

[Charles_Main]

Eisenhower warned about the dangers of the military industrial complex.

Two nuclear submarines could probably wipe out 75% of Russia's industrial capacity.

Unless of course Russia SANK them. Or they were in port for repairs. Or they broke down.

Lets just cut our own throats while Russia builds up again, GREAT plan.

Just trying to think of ways to stop the Deficit spending bud. I am pretty sure with 5 or 6 hundred nukes we could sufficiently deter Russia.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Eisenhower warned about the dangers of the military industrial complex.

Two nuclear submarines could probably wipe out 75% of Russia's industrial capacity.

Unless of course Russia SANK them. Or they were in port for repairs. Or they broke down.

Lets just cut our own throats while Russia builds up again, GREAT plan.

Just trying to think of ways to stop the Deficit spending bud. I am pretty sure with 5 or 6 hundred nukes we could sufficiently deter Russia.

And you would be a fool for thinking that.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Eisenhower warned about the dangers of the military industrial complex.
Two nuclear submarines could probably wipe out 75% of Russia's industrial capacity.

How about using the whole quote?:
Military-industrial complex - SourceWatch

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

'Unwarranted' meaning we shouldn't let the arms makers drive Governmental policy. That does not mean there should be no military at all.

"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Ike understood that the Military machine was there for our defense and kept the peace. Dismantling it all will not make the world more peaceful.

His children suggest that in an earlier draft of the speech, he refered to the "military-industrial-congressional complex".

That would be Congress Critters like Boxer (D) and Pelosi (D) from California who have husbands that are big defense contractors and use their spouses influence to further their aims. I'm sure the are some Republicans who fit in that category too.

The military-industrial complex is generally defined as a "coalition consisting of the military and industrialists who profit by manufacturing arms and selling them to the government." (War profiteering) Eisenhower related, however, that until World War II, the United States did not have an armaments industry. Even though "American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well," the United States could "no longer risk emergency improvisation" of the country's national defense.

That means that the US didn't have to ramp up production in time of war anymore as the means of production already existed. The US had to ramp up early in WW II and as a result lost more than one battle in the Pacific and European theaters. That should never happen again by keeping the means of production open.

The United States, he continues, had been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. At that time, the U.S. was annually spending more on military security "than the net income of all United States corporations." This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry, he said, was "new in the American experience" and that there was an imperative need for this development.

Notice he doesn't say at any time that we need to tear it down only that we must guard against it's unwarranted influence.

Here's Ikes' speech:
[youtube]8y06NSBBRtY[/youtube]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Eisenhower warned about the dangers of the military industrial complex.
Two nuclear submarines could probably wipe out 75% of Russia's industrial capacity.

How about using the whole quote?:
Military-industrial complex - SourceWatch

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

'Unwarranted' meaning we shouldn't let the arms makers drive Governmental policy. That does not mean there should be no military at all.
Ike understood that the Military machine was there for our defense and kept the peace. Dismantling it all will not make the world more peaceful.
That would be Congress Critters like Boxer (D) and Pelosi (D) from California who have husbands that are big defense contractors and use their spouses influence to further their aims. I'm sure the are some Republicans who fit in that category too.

The military-industrial complex is generally defined as a "coalition consisting of the military and industrialists who profit by manufacturing arms and selling them to the government." (War profiteering) Eisenhower related, however, that until World War II, the United States did not have an armaments industry. Even though "American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well," the United States could "no longer risk emergency improvisation" of the country's national defense.

That means that the US didn't have to ramp up production in time of war anymore as the means of production already existed. The US had to ramp up early in WW II and as a result lost more than one battle in the Pacific and European theaters. That should never happen again by keeping the means of production open.

The United States, he continues, had been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. At that time, the U.S. was annually spending more on military security "than the net income of all United States corporations." This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry, he said, was "new in the American experience" and that there was an imperative need for this development.

Notice he doesn't say at any time that we need to tear it down only that we must guard against it's unwarranted influence.

Here's Ikes' speech:
[youtube]8y06NSBBRtY[/youtube]

Now there you go RUINING a good lie with simple facts. Have you no heart for our lying sniveling Liberals?

 

[editec]

Lots of pork in the military budget no doubt.

Trim accordingly is my suggestion.

 

[Charles_Main]

Unless of course Russia SANK them. Or they were in port for repairs. Or they broke down.

Lets just cut our own throats while Russia builds up again, GREAT plan.

Just trying to think of ways to stop the Deficit spending bud. I am pretty sure with 5 or 6 hundred nukes we could sufficiently deter Russia.

And you would be a fool for thinking that.

Sorry Bud I do not agree. As long as we have the ability to Destroy Anyone who dares attack us with Nukes, we are set. That can be done with far less than 9600 Nukes.

Please do not stoop to calling me a liberal simply because we do not agree on this issue. My conservative values are driving this in me. I hold Cutting spending and balancing the Budget pretty high on the list.

We need to make cuts all over the place. Certainly not just in defense.

I think our Conventional forces, especially the Air force and navy, are the most important thing. We need to remain king of the seas, and air. Being able to decimate the world with 9600 Nukes seems like over kill to me. With just a hundred or so a nation like Russia could be effectively destroyed. Its cities and infrastructure wasted, and population cut in half or less, leaving us with 4 to 5 hundred bombs left. If we kept but 600.

9600 is over kill and costly.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Sorry Bud I do not agree. As long as we have the ability to Destroy Anyone who dares attack us with Nukes, we are set. That can be done with far less than 9600 Nukes.
I think our Conventional forces, especially the Air force and navy, are the most important thing. We need to remain king of the seas, and air. Being able to decimate the world with 9600 Nukes seems like over kill to me. With just a hundred or so a nation like Russia could be effectively destroyed. Its cities and infrastructure wasted, and population cut in half or less, leaving us with 4 to 5 hundred bombs left. If we kept but 600. 9600 is over kill and costly.

Mutual Assured Destruction kept us from being nuked since the fifties. Why change that?
I can see that you're a "Dejected Conservative" and I understand that. But please don't wimp out and go Metrosexual with that whole "Let's disarm so we can show everyone we care and mean no harm" bullshit.
That crap didn't work with the High School bully and all it will do is embolden our enemies.

 

[johnrocks]

Stop defending Europe, WWll is over.