DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**abOfU9nJ** · 08-03-2010, 09:43 PM

Unlike Health Care, When It Comes To Nukes, Cost Is No Object

The lead story in Saturday's Washington Post, about the nuclear weapons decisions facing President Obama, runs longer than 1,300 words, but five a reader won't find are "cost," "dollars," "money," "debt," or "deficit." A reader would also search in vain for any talk of a "fiscal crisis" or a need to balance nuclear weapons priorities with available revenues.

That same reader, of course, rarely has to venture past the first sentence of a health care reform story to find that the subject is a "trillion dollar overhaul." Occasionally, it's noted that the trillion dollars is spread over ten years.

One particular decision that Obama faces is whether to continue what's known as the "triad" - three independent ways the United States developed to annihilate the Soviet Union. Warheads can be delivered with bombers, from submarines or with intercontinental ballistic missiles.

The military developed ICBMs in the '50s and '60s, recognizing that bombers would soon be obsolete and too easy to defend against. But the bomber squadrons have their own internal and industry defenders and have never been phased out. Each leg of the triad costs tens of billions of dollars per year to maintain. I know conservatives are generally very pro military funding (as am I) however don't you think there is a limit at which point it becomes redundant? What are your thoughts on eliminating one of the triad in an effort to save cost and bring down the deficit? If you had to choose one, which one?

You can destroy the USSR 1000 times over with nukes from subs, bombers or cruise missiles. I would probably argue that bombers are the most obsolete of these methods and the savings would be substantial.

08-03-2010, 09:43 PM	#1
abOfU9nJ Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 469 Senior Member	The Nuclear Triad Unlike Health Care, When It Comes To Nukes, Cost Is No Object The lead story in Saturday's Washington Post, about the nuclear weapons decisions facing President Obama, runs longer than 1,300 words, but five a reader won't find are "cost," "dollars," "money," "debt," or "deficit." A reader would also search in vain for any talk of a "fiscal crisis" or a need to balance nuclear weapons priorities with available revenues. That same reader, of course, rarely has to venture past the first sentence of a health care reform story to find that the subject is a "trillion dollar overhaul." Occasionally, it's noted that the trillion dollars is spread over ten years. One particular decision that Obama faces is whether to continue what's known as the "triad" - three independent ways the United States developed to annihilate the Soviet Union. Warheads can be delivered with bombers, from submarines or with intercontinental ballistic missiles. The military developed ICBMs in the '50s and '60s, recognizing that bombers would soon be obsolete and too easy to defend against. But the bomber squadrons have their own internal and industry defenders and have never been phased out. Each leg of the triad costs tens of billions of dollars per year to maintain. I know conservatives are generally very pro military funding (as am I) however don't you think there is a limit at which point it becomes redundant? What are your thoughts on eliminating one of the triad in an effort to save cost and bring down the deficit? If you had to choose one, which one? You can destroy the USSR 1000 times over with nukes from subs, bombers or cruise missiles. I would probably argue that bombers are the most obsolete of these methods and the savings would be substantial.
	Quote