DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump Plans for Nuclear Arsenal to cost $1.2 trillion

This man is so staggeringly dumb, we may never recover from it.

Imagine spending $1.2 trillion dollars because some gruel-brained invalid got fussy while watching "Fox & Friends"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/us/po...nal-budget.html

he price tag of President Trump’s vision of remaking the American nuclear arsenal soared on Tuesday as a new government estimate put the cost of a 30-year makeover at $1.2 trillion, more than 20 percent higher than earlier figures.

The rebuilding proposal includes the nation’s nuclear weapons, bombers, missiles and submarines.

The report from the Congressional Budget Office was the most authoritative accounting yet of the full cost of rebuilding an aging, potentially vulnerable nuclear arsenal that often relies on Cold War-era technology. It was published just weeks before the Pentagon is supposed to issue its first broad nuclear strategy of the Trump administration, an assessment called the Nuclear Posture Review.

Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, who had been a skeptic about the need to preserve the nuclear force’s 400 land-based missiles, in silos across the American West, said in September that he had changed his view and now believed it was necessary to preserve them.

Mr. Trump has publicly declared that he wants the American nuclear arsenal to be “top of the pack,” and has been widely reported as asking his aides why the United States needs to limit the number of deployed warheads to 1,550, as set by the 2010 New START treaty with Russia. But he has said nothing about breaking out of the treaty, and the estimate issued Tuesday by the budget office is based largely on plans that were left over from President Barack Obama’s time in office.


Those plans may grow more ambitious, senior administration officials say, as the White House seeks new ways to counter North Korea, push back against Iran and deal with significant nuclear modernization in both Russia and China. The authors of the Nuclear Posture Review were told they could consider the building of new types of nuclear weapons, even some now prohibited by treaty.

Any changes could drive up the estimated cost of rebuilding the nation’s arsenal, and the figures released Tuesday did not account for inflation, which independent experts say would drive the total figure to more than $1.6 trillion.

The overall direction of the buildup may also end the discussion, driven by Mr. Obama during much of his term, about how to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in American offensive and defensive planning. In the end Mr. Obama walked back from his vision, deciding against eliminating one leg of the “triad” — made up of weapons carried aboard ground-based missiles, submarines and bombers — and he rejected advice from some of his top nuclear strategists about how to bring the total number of deployed American weapons below 1,000, even if President Vladimir V. Putin was not willing to make similar cuts.

Critics of the American arsenal, who grew increasingly frustrated with Mr. Obama, have urged Mr. Trump to pare back, for reasons of budget if not strategy.

Two former senior military officials, William J. Perry, who served as secretary of defense, and Gen. James E. Cartwright, who served as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described the congressional report as “a wake up call” in a letter Tuesday to Mr. Trump. The report demonstrated that current plans to rebuild the nuclear arsenal “are unsustainable and must be rethought,” they wrote.

The report, about 70 pages long, details nine cost-cutting options for Congress that run from relatively minor to more extensive.

One option, for example, examined the savings if the administration decided to forego a new generation of nuclear cruise missiles — low-flying weapons with stubby wings that, when dropped from a bomber, hug the ground to avoid enemy radars and air defenses.

The weapon was endorsed by Mr. Obama, though it has been criticized by other Democratic nuclear experts, like William Perry, as destabilizing. In any event, its elimination would save only about $30 billion — about 2.5 percent of the total nuclear expenditures.

Another option called for deploying fewer submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles than currently planned. Over three decades, that would save $85 billion. Scrapping the aging land-based missiles altogether would result in the largest savings, $175 billion.

“It explodes the myth that the plan’s proponents have been trying to foist on us — that it’s all of the above or nothing,” said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a private group in Washington. “The reality is that there’re a number practical options to save tens of billions of dollars while still maintaining a robust nuclear force.”

The $1.2 trillion figure over three decades compares to annual expenditures for Medicare of about $650 billion and for Medicaid of about $550 billion.

“The stark reality underlined by C.B.O. is that unless the U.S. government finds a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, the nuclear weapons spending plan inherited by the Trump administration will pose a crushing affordability problem,” said Kingston Reif, director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association.

While Mr. Trump likes to take credit for the nuclear weapons push, the costly makeover actually began with Mr. Obama, despite his repeated calls for “a world without nuclear weapons.” Mr. Obama argued that by making nuclear weapons safer and more reliable, their numbers could eventually be reduced, setting the world on a path to their elimination. Some of Mr. Obama’s aides, thinking that Hillary Clinton would win the presidential election, expected deep cuts in the $1 trillion plan.

Mr. Trump inherited the costly makeover, and his first budget proposed to move fully ahead with the Obama administration approach — and then some. In an August speech, he boasted that his administration was spending “vast amounts” on overhauling the nuclear arsenal.

Administration critics and arms control advocates say the Congressional Budget Office report reveals how extraordinarily difficult it will become in future years to maintain the nuclear weapons plan and the administration’s promises as the costs of the rebuilding program begin to soar.

“Many elements of Trump’s nuclear spending spree are excessive and dangerous,” said Tom Z. Collina, policy director at Ploughshares Fund. “We would be safer and richer without them.”

Mr. Perry, the former defense secretary, argued last year in a New York Times Op-Ed article that eliminating the ground-based missiles would improve global security. “These missiles are some of the most dangerous weapons in the world,” he wrote. “They could even trigger an accidental nuclear war” because their vulnerability to pre-emptive strikes would, in a time of crisis, give the president an incentive to launch them.

Critics see the nation’s launch-on-warning policy as greatly increasing the risk of accidental war. In the past, they note, false alerts have repeatedly brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear disaster.

“We should consider all aspects of our nuclear posture, and our conventional forces’ needs,” Mr. Perry and General Cartwright wrote to Mr. Trump, “before rushing headlong into these expensive and contentious development programs.”

The way superpowers, which definitely includes us, handles our nuclear capabilities can be described as reckless and unnecessary, IMO.

In a time where we should be scaling back the amount of warheads we have, once again everyone around the world wants to Hager a bigger stick competition.

Now we are about to get fleeced for 1.8 trillion ATLEAST, while trying to cut taxes, while increasing defense spending, etc.

I always find it pathetic that the so called greatest country on earth always seem to find money for mass destruction of people, but is always broke when it comes to upgrading the people’s standard of living.

I find our nuclear arsenal, and surrounding situations, to be one of the many blemishes we bare as a nation.

And this current administration has only made it worse.

Calm down Swish.. there is a company in Idaho with 2 employees that says they can take care of it for $1.6 trillion..

That says it all right there.
The Government is not there to upgrade your standard of living.
The Government is there to protect the Country and your Rights under the Constitution WHILE YOU GET OFF THE COUCH AND UPGRADE YOUR OWN STANDARD OF LIVING!

actually the government is suppose to do whatever the people tell them to do, as they are funded by our tax money.

but vampires like you suck up all the resources so you can go kill some more people, or lock up more people.

The american dream is all but dead because of people with your mentality. you have let royalty somehow convince you that they need more money.

i look at hard right wingers like you and wonder why we even bothered fighting the crown in 1776 when all that happened was the creation of a modern day monarchy in US government.

politicians today are nothing more than the royalty class, also made up of elitist, oligarchs, religious leaders, and corporations.

and they have convinced the gullible population such as yourself that they need more resources in order to "protect" you. because you are weak. you are scared. you are fearful.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

- Benjamin Franklin.

^^^ that's fits you perfectly, 40.

Dang 40, I didn't know you were going around killing and throwing people in jail! why you doing that man!

J/C

Liberty -


1.the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views:

synonyms: independence · freedom · autonomy · sovereignty

(liberties)

an instance of this; a right or privilege, especially a statutory one:

"the Bill of Rights was intended to secure basic civil liberties"

synonyms: right · birthright · prerogative · entitlement

•the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved:

Unfortunately, if ever another country exceeds our nuclear capability, it will signal the end of the U.S. and general world freedom.

I try to stop but nothing happens.

Remember when you wanted the government to ban oral sex?

No, but I remember how you used to make up anything and speak like it was a fact.

We call it talking out of your neck now.

I actually remember this incident. You supported an anti-sodomy bill that also banned oral sex.

I supported the anti sodomy bill and posted a medical report on how the new Superbugs that are not touched by antibiotics are found deep in the rectums of their victims and carriers.

Then some of you guys didn't want to face that truth and began with twisting it into oral sex as you panicked.

Yes, now I remember.

quote above by 40:



Rectum?

I never touched 'em!

Rectum is above Uranus I believe.

Let's not taint this discussion with dirty talk, m'kay fellas?

No, you claimed it didn't include acts between a man and woman, and then copied and pasted a definition of sodomy from the first Google search result, purposely cutting out the part that indicated it was an act between a man and a woman.

When I pointed it out, you got embarrassed and then posted a medical report to deflect.

Yea, ok, you win.

See how easy that is?

Now admit it's insane to waste trillions on weapons we don't need.

I feel better knowing nobody will screw with us.
Or Poof.

Then you should be feeling groovy because that's been the case for the last 50+ years.

Got me through.

I even practiced by ducking and covering under my desk at school.

I'm a Cold War Trooper.

We do not need anymore nukes. We have plenty, and have many more pressing needs. This is about a crybaby trying to act tough, and that's no reason to spend that much.

I wish someone would hurry up and come up with Warp Drive, give the planets uranium supply something better to do.

If indeed you need uranium to power a warp drive.

A real one that is.

Warp drive would be great until it happened.

Next you know your mother-in-laws warping in, so is your kid, they want money, boss is warping over to see if you're *really* sick....

If the Commander in Chief and the Military think we need more, upgraded, better, more powerful or anything Nukes, I am for it.

I remember the story during the Obama years of a special wrench used to set something with our Nukes. There was only one because of cost. They had to UPS it to the different sites to make the necessary settings every year.

I don't like that. Buy them each one.

And by the way, that money isn't for this year, it is over time.

No, that's a TRANSPORTER. Not an interstellar space engine.

The person you're referring to is a mentally ill sexual predator who is comically oblivious. Why on earth would his wishes be a rubber stamp for you?

"This guy with the temperament of a child who soiled themselves says we need more nukes. I'm in."

And the person who keeps referring to our President like that has got some issues of his own.

I love how you guys deflect, because deep down inside you know it's true.

He's a sexual predator - he's admitted to it on tape multiple times. He's been accused by dozens of women. He's bragged about walking into teenage beauty pageant dressing rooms, and has intimated several times on tape he wants to have sex with his daughter

He's an oblivious moron - he thinks health insurance costs $12 a year, he thinks King Jong-Il and Kim Jong-Un are the same person, he just found out a few months ago Lincoln was a Republican, he has a vocabulary that rivals an African Grey.

He's lazy - completely unwilling to even try and learn, his staff has to manipulate and shorten his daily briefings (including using pictures and praise to keep his attention), he's on pace to golf more in his first year than any of his predecessors did in 8.

Tell me- specifically- any of this you disagree with, and I'll gladly provide evidence to support it.

The way you describe it, he sounds similar to Bill Clinton, minus the wanting to have sex with his daughter thing.

Got a link for that one?

He has been a multi Billionaire Playboy for what? 40 years?

Remove the plank from your own eye before pointing out the speck in another's.

Bill Clinton is a sexual predator, as well.

When asked by Wendy Williams what he and his daughter have most in common, his answer was "sex" (any father with a daughter should shudder, she's sitting next to him).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l4UJl7f2aEk

He told Stern his daughter was a piece of ass.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/08/politics/trump-on-howard-stern/index.html

"If she wasn't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...p-a7353876.html

He bragged to Stern that he used to walk backstage and peep on teenage girls at his beauty pageants. The contestants confirm he did so.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/fea...niverse-w444634

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pres...ageant-changing

I think we've all seen the tape where he brags to Billy Bush about sexually assaulting women.

Oh, his first wife accused him of raping him while in a rage over a bad hair plug surgery.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-wife-donald-trump-made-me-feel-violated-during-sex


He's been accused of sexual assault nearly 2 dozen times. Should I post a link for each one?

You're trying to make him some smooth playboy and not a sweaty creep with a weave who has been a pervert for years.

Suave playboys don't sexually assault women, spy on teenagers in dressing rooms and talk about their daughters like sex objects.

if that's your excuse, then he should've stayed that way instead of you justifying him to be POTUS.

So, I checked out the first 3 links. I didn't see a thing about him wanting to have sex with his daughter.

Did you misspeak when you said this:

Hey, I think my daughter is gorgeous. That doesn't mean I want to have sex with her. That's sick and disgusting.

I know Trump has come across as disgusting in many ways, but I don't see where he said he wanted to have sex with her.

he said he wanted to date his daughter, dude. that crap is disgusting.

I knew what I was getting when I pulled the lever.
He is Brash, Bold, Fears no Man, Tough, Focused and Determined to give back to America what he has enjoyed his entire life.
He wants to strengthen America so it will still be there for his children and grandchildren to enjoy.

He is not a politician.

After all the damage done to this Nation, morally, socially and economically, by the Left, I find President Trump to be a breath of fresh air.

I agree. Trust me, I agree. (but, did he say he wanted to date his daughter? Or was more along the lines of "I would date this girl?")

Where did he say he wanted to have sex with her?

If you were doing an interview with your daughter, and the host asked what you two most had in common, how high would "sex" be on your answer list?

Would you ever refer to your daughter as a "piece of ass"?

Would you ever think to say that if she's wasn't your daughter, you'd "probably be dating her"?

Do you find any of that weird? And would you find it even more unsettling if it came from the mouth of an admitted sexual predator?

that seems unlikely. if true, then then you blatantly admit that you sacrificed your christian values to support this man.

not a good look if you want to make it to heaven.



he's a con artist who committed fraud and only cares about himself and ivanka.



his children and grandchildren already enjoy the very best. this is a false narrative.



yes he is.



false. but keep spreading fake news. that's starting to be a trump supporter trademark.

like the one his daughter scored from the chinese while working for the government.

glad you support nepotism.