US to spend $352bil on nuclear arsenal

If you want peace, prepare for war.

Enemies have this unsportsmanlike tendency to attack when they know you're not prepared.
Unless you're going to argue that the USA has no enemies?

This is really a double edged sword. Sure, we look stronger and more prepared so people are less likely to f'uck with us. Or are they? If we appear to be mobilizing and increasing our armaments (even if we say it's for the sake of peace and security), other countries will take that as a sign that they need to mobilize as well. So then we have people on both sides arming themselves because, hell, everyone else is and we don't trust their intentions. This is basically how WWI was started.

I guess it makes sense for the US to upgrade and secure its aging nuclear weaponry, but considering the country is in huge debt and we have a ton of other priorities, idk if this was the best time to sink almost $400 billion into nukes.

I never got why the government goes public with these things.

I never got why the government goes public with these things.

Could just be they're trying to get the word out they may need jobs. Who knows, the government does what it wants to.

This is really a double edged sword. Sure, we look stronger and more prepared so people are less likely to f'uck with us. Or are they? If we appear to be mobilizing and increasing our armaments (even if we say it's for the sake of peace and security), other countries will take that as a sign that they need to mobilize as well. So then we have people on both sides arming themselves because, hell, everyone else is and we don't trust their intentions. This is basically how WWI was started.

I guess it makes sense for the US to upgrade and secure its aging nuclear weaponry, but considering the country is in huge debt and we have a ton of other priorities, idk if this was the best time to sink almost $400 billion into nukes.

By retreating we get that result anyway

By retreating we get that result anyway

Who said anything about retreating?

This is really a double edged sword. Sure, we look stronger and more prepared so people are less likely to f'uck with us. Or are they? If we appear to be mobilizing and increasing our armaments (even if we say it's for the sake of peace and security), other countries will take that as a sign that they need to mobilize as well. So then we have people on both sides arming themselves because, hell, everyone else is and we don't trust their intentions. This is basically how WWI was started.

I guess it makes sense for the US to upgrade and secure its aging nuclear weaponry, but considering the country is in huge debt and we have a ton of other priorities, idk if this was the best time to sink almost $400 billion into nukes.

It's estimated 352 billion over 10 years. That means about 35 billion a year for 10 years. the current US budget is somewhere around 3 trillion dollars. 35 billion is noticeable but it isn't terribly large when considering the federal budget.

1 can wipe out Moscow..........

There are more places with nuclear missiles other than Russia.

I never got why the government goes public with these things.

How else would it act as a deterrence to other countries? America does this because it feels powerful and intimidating then. Makes sense if you consider how Asia is doing. It revolts me honestly. Makes me wonder if The Netherlands have any nukes of their own...

Who said anything about using them? The key is that they exist. They publicized this for exactly that reason; they want everyone in the world to know we still have operational nukes in order to dissuade any potential stupidity, and they want to remind them of it as often as possible. Just the fact that we have used them in the past should be enough of a deterrent for all but the most suicidal of our enemies. Sure, some terrorists are trained to think that it is honorable to kill others even if they die in the process, but there's no honor in getting vaporized by a nuclear warhead and not even taking any infidels down with you.

Who said anything about retreating?

We ran to the pacific last I checked because of the rebellions

We ran to the pacific last I checked because of the rebellions

I don't know what specific "rebellions" you are refering to, but although it is clear that the world's focus is becoming centered on Asia and the East, I don't really see the U.S. running to the pacific.

I don't know what specific "rebellions" you are refering to, but although it is clear that the world's focus is becoming centered on Asia and the East, I don't really see the U.S. running to the pacific.

The embassy's, I read an article on friday that our troops/embassy personal are being flown somewhere in the pacific.

The embassy's, I read an article on friday that our troops/embassy personal are being flown somewhere in the pacific.

Oh really? Eh. I guess it was either that or send in extra security forces which could potentially stress some relations in the area. I probably wouldn't have pulled our forces completely, but it is a fairly volatile situation, so who knows what the best course of action was.

Oh really? Eh. I guess it was either that or send in extra security forces which could potentially stress some relations in the area. I probably wouldn't have pulled our forces completely, but it is a fairly volatile situation, so who knows what the best course of action was.

I can't find it now, so at this point it's hearsay, but it makes sense why they are doing this now.

finally an un-stupid decision way to spend money. there is still hope in the US government. unless romney gets voted in.. that is.