Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Underreported: Nukes cost U.S. $52 billion last year

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:03 AM
Original message
Underreported: Nukes cost U.S. $52 billion last year
February 2, 2009

A new study revealed that the United States spent more than $52 billion last year on nuclear weapons and related programs.

The study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said that U.S. nuclear weapons spending — excluding classified programs — makes up 10 percent of the total defense budget, consumes 67 percent of the Department of Energy’s budget, and exceeds the total amount spent on international diplomacy and foreign aid, which is $39.5 billion. It also exceeds spending on technology, general science and space, which is $27.4 billion.

The report concluded that only 1.3 percent of the total amount was directed toward preparing for a nuclear or radiological attack, while 56 percent is devoted to maintaining and upgrading the current U.S. nuclear arsenal. $5 billion was used for nonproliferation, elimination, prevention and securing efforts ...

http://dailyuw.com/2009/2/2/nukes-cost-us-52-billion-last-year/




Nuclear Security Spending: Assessing Costs, Examining Priorities
Stephen I. Schwartz, Deepti Choubey
Carnegie Endowment Report, January 2009 ...
http://carnegieendowment.org.nyud.net:8090/images/article_images/20080111-NuclearAppropriationsCategory.gif
... http://carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=22601&prog=zgp&proj=znpp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
1. This, in my opinion, is a great example of why we don't need to raise taxes...
we just need to spend the money we do gather more effectively.

We could have a Cadillac Health and Human Services sector if we would simply stop spending so much on the MIC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
2. We could save a fortune on nuclear missiles just by threatening to dentonate nukes in-place.
Edited on Sun Feb-08-09 09:34 AM by Ian David
We have enough nukes to blow-up the world several times over.

I don't see the point of putting them on missiles and bombers when all we have to do is detonate them right here at home to kill our enemies.

You figure you keep maybe 15 missiles (the maximum for a "limited" exchange that wouldn't devastate the environment) and just bolt a few hundred to the ground where they already are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. "I'll shoot myself and then you'll be sorry" school of international warfare!
Aside from the fact that it invites the response, "Uh, OK, go ahead," I can't see anything wrong with it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. If we detonated our nuclear arsenal in Kansas, all the Russians, Chinese, etc. would die too. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Dr Strangelove and the real Doomsday machine
Times Online
August 08, 2007
Christopher Coker

P. D. Smith
DOOMSDAY MEN
The real Dr Strangelove and the dream of the superweapon
552pp. Allen Lane. £20.
9 78 071 399815 3

... Smith’s study is the gripping, untold story of the ultimate weapon of mass destruction, which first came to public attention in 1950 when the Hungarian-born scientist Leo Szilard made a dramatic announcement on radio: science was on the verge of creating a Doomsday Bomb. For the first time in history, mankind would soon have the ability to destroy all life on the planet. The shockwave from this statement reverberated across the following decade and beyond.

What Szilard had in mind was the third of the “alphabet bombs” that came to characterize an entire age. The first, the A-bomb, had been used to incinerate two Japanese cities. Teller’s H-bomb blasted its way into public consciousness a few years later. Finally, there was the ultimate weapon: the C-bomb, a hydrogen bomb that could “transmute” an element such as cobalt into a radioactive element about 320 times as powerful as radium. A deadly radioactive cloud could be released into the atmosphere and carried by the westerly winds across the surface of the earth. Every living thing inhaling it, or even touched by it, would be doomed to certain death. In the autumn of 1950, Szilard’s fears were given independent validation by Dr James R. Arnold of the Institute for Nuclear Studies in Chicago. Arnold, slide-rule in hand, had started out to debunk Szilard’s arguments. He finished by publishing a set of calculations that showed that a Doomsday device, perhaps two-and-a-half times as heavy as the battleship Missouri, could indeed be built.

Throughout the 1950s and into the next decade the C-Bomb became a familiar spectre. In best-sellers such as Neville Shute’s On The Beach (1957) and box office hits such as Return to the Planet of the Apes it became a compelling symbol of humanity’s self-destructive Promethean ambition. It even found a mention in Agatha Christie’s novel Destination Unknown (1954), in which one of the characters, sitting in her hotel, knitting and discussing the latest weapons of mass destruction, concludes: “I do think all these bombs are very wrong. And cobalt – such a lovely colour in one’s paintbox. I used it a lot as a child. And the worst of all, I understand nobody can survive”. The travel writer Bruce Chatwin was also reminded of his great-aunt’s paintbox (she did lots of “St Sebastians”, always against a cobalt blue background) when he wrote his autobiographical book In Patagonia (1977). As a schoolboy he had pictured a dense blue cloudbank, spitting tongues of flame at the edges. He had seen himself, out alone on a green headland, scanning the horizon for the advance of the cloud. Patagonia, he had decided, was the one place on the map he could live while the rest of the world blew up ...

http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25350-2648363,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. You mean like this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. "He's just crazy enough to do it!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phred42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
7. In addition to THAT stupidity here's more!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Thanks. That's an eye-opening graphic. It would be great to put those funds to more productive
use -- but of course that will require some major political changes

Still, we might be able to hack some tens of billions off, and make friends around the world, by a serious effort to reduce nuclear weapons caches -- and if we can succeed at that, we can probably make progress on conventional weapons too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC