• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump budget gives top priority to new generation of nuclear weapons

MauiMan

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Messages
3,600
Reaction score
2,051
Location
Seattle WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Trump budget gives top priority to new generation of nuclear weapons - World Socialist Web Site

"The most ominous feature of the new budget document issued Monday by the Trump administration is the prominent place given to the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons, including so-called low-yield weapons, smaller than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which are widely regarded as more likely to actually be used in combat."

"The Trump budget would slash spending on diplomacy and foreign aid while sharply increasing funding for nuclear weapons, a clear indication of the policy direction being given from the White House in the wake of Trump’s acquittal last week in the impeachment trial before the Senate."

————————

Trump likes nukes! Only HE has the rights to THE BUTTON!
 
Trump supporters literally hand waving away the two most prominent threats to humankind because Trump makes them feel like schoolgirls on prom night
 
Trump supporters literally hand waving away the two most prominent threats to humankind because Trump makes them feel like schoolgirls on prom night

Americans have long sucked ass at risk assessment, the decline in this skill was part of the great rotting out of the nation, so dont bet your cookies that what you have been told is correct.

Especially when it comes from whiny emotionally troubled teenagers.
 
Trump supporters literally hand waving away the two most prominent threats to humankind because Trump makes them feel like schoolgirls on prom night

:roll:
 
Nothing makes my day easier than a left-wing nut case. Trying to frame everything in their opinion piece, like it's a possible end of the world scenario.
 
Trump budget gives top priority to new generation of nuclear weapons - World Socialist Web Site

"The most ominous feature of the new budget document issued Monday by the Trump administration is the prominent place given to the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons, including so-called low-yield weapons, smaller than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which are widely regarded as more likely to actually be used in combat."

"The Trump budget would slash spending on diplomacy and foreign aid while sharply increasing funding for nuclear weapons, a clear indication of the policy direction being given from the White House in the wake of Trump’s acquittal last week in the impeachment trial before the Senate."

————————

Trump likes nukes! Only HE has the rights to THE BUTTON!
Nukes are good. They protect us from the bad guys.
 
Nothing makes my day easier than a left-wing nut case. Trying to frame everything in their opinion piece, like it's a possible end of the world scenario.

How many more nuclear weapons do you need to feel safe? We have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and multiple platforms and methods to deliver them and still conservative want to build more. Who or what are you so afraid of?

Do you understand that even using one of them will make the world unlivable for a few years because of the worldwide fallout and a nuclear winter?

Nuclear winter is a severe and prolonged global climatic cooling effect hypothesized to occur after widespread firestorms following a nuclear war. The hypothesis is based on the fact that such fires can inject soot into the stratosphere, where it can block some direct sunlight from reaching the surface of the Earth.
Wiki, nuclear winter
 
You're post layout broke by the way. So I'll try and salvage it.
How many more nuclear weapons do you need to feel safe? We have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and multiple platforms and methods to deliver them and still conservative want to build more. Who or what are you so afraid of?

Do you understand that even using one of them will make the world unlivable for a few years because of the worldwide fallout and a nuclear winter?

No, depending on what the weapon actually is and what yield it is, we could have no such problem.
Then again, this was almost seven months ago and given what we know now about the budget proposal, plus how it turned out. We know that this really isn't going to be the case.

I don't have an issue with the spending, only that something useful comes from it. I'd really like to see a more domestic use for fusion power in our lives to be honest.
 
You're post layout broke by the way. So I'll try and salvage it.


No, depending on what the weapon actually is and what yield it is, we could have no such problem.
Then again, this was almost seven months ago and given what we know now about the budget proposal, plus how it turned out. We know that this really isn't going to be the case.

I don't have an issue with the spending, only that something useful comes from it. I'd really like to see a more domestic use for fusion power in our lives to be honest.

I love the idea of fusion energy but commercial use of it is 10-20 years in the future, at best. They have yet to created a sustained fusion reaction, and that is 5 years away.

We need to fix our current infrastructure first and that is 2-3 trillion dollars. I'd cut the DoD by a 1/3 and repeal the Trump tax cuts, and spend that money domestically in infrastructure, healthcare, education and green energy.

It's time to learn the lessons and the wisdom of Dwight Eisenhower's Cross of Iron speech about 60 years ago. I'd vote Republican again if the GOP ever nominated a pragmatic candidate for POTUS

And so it has come to pass that the Soviet Union itself has shared and suffered the very fears it has fostered in the rest of the world. This has been the way of life forged by eight years of fear and force. What can the world, or any nation in it, hope for if no turning is found on this dread road? The worst to be feared and the best to be expected can be simply stated. The worst is atomic war. The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system, or the Soviet system, or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. These plain and cruel truths define the peril and point the hope that come with this spring of 1953.

This is one of those times in the affairs of nations when the gravest choices must be made, if there is to be a turning toward a just and lasting peace. It is a moment that calls upon the governments of the world to speak their intentions with simplicity and with honesty. It calls upon them to answer the question that stirs the hearts of all sane men: Is there no other way the world may live?
Dwight Eisenhower Cross of Iron Speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors (tetxt-audio)
 
How many more nuclear weapons do you need to feel safe? We have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and multiple platforms and methods to deliver them and still conservative want to build more. Who or what are you so afraid of?

Do you understand that even using one of them will make the world unlivable for a few years because of the worldwide fallout and a nuclear winter?

Wiki, nuclear winter


Incorrect on all counts. The Russians have more nuclear weapons than the United States. And nuclear winter is a pure myth that even its author, Carl Sagan, admitted before he died.

And the idea that "one" nuclear weapon would make the "world unlivable" is too stupid to bother refuting. You need to read something about the subject.
 
I love the idea of fusion energy but commercial use of it is 10-20 years in the future, at best. They have yet to created a sustained fusion reaction, and that is 5 years away.

We need to fix our current infrastructure first and that is 2-3 trillion dollars. I'd cut the DoD by a 1/3 and repeal the Trump tax cuts, and spend that money domestically in infrastructure, healthcare, education and green energy.

It's time to learn the lessons and the wisdom of Dwight Eisenhower's Cross of Iron speech about 60 years ago. I'd vote Republican again if the GOP ever nominated a pragmatic candidate for POTUS

I guess you did not know that Eisenhower was a big advocate of using nuclear weapons in warfare. He saw little point in avoiding the use of them and in fact saw keeping a big nuclear arsenal as a great way to spend less on conventional forces.

And fusion is 10-20 years away..

And always will be.
 
I guess you did not know that Eisenhower was a big advocate of using nuclear weapons in warfare. He saw little point in avoiding the use of them and in fact saw keeping a big nuclear arsenal as a great way to spend less on conventional forces.

And fusion is 10-20 years away..

And always will be.

We have a nuclear arsenal that would dwarf what we had in 1957 during his terms. Who or what are you afraid of? The use of nuclear weapons is the end of civilization but you wont use them by yourself but there will be multiple nations joining in and that will be the end of life as we know it. The world understand this and that is why we are slowly shedding them. They are great as a deterrent but they are not useful tactically.

It's long past time for humans to grow up and mature beyond our tribal ways and join together as a global species for good.
 
I love the idea of fusion energy but commercial use of it is 10-20 years in the future, at best. They have yet to created a sustained fusion reaction, and that is 5 years away.

We need to fix our current infrastructure first and that is 2-3 trillion dollars. I'd cut the DoD by a 1/3 and repeal the Trump tax cuts, and spend that money domestically in infrastructure, healthcare, education and green energy.

It's time to learn the lessons and the wisdom of Dwight Eisenhower's Cross of Iron speech about 60 years ago. I'd vote Republican again if the GOP ever nominated a pragmatic candidate for POTUS


Dwight Eisenhower Cross of Iron Speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors (tetxt-audio)

Infrastructure and DoD spending has been an issue with almost everyone administration. We'd need both parties to be on the same page for that kind of change to come into effect and even then, we'd need someone to be the first actor in it.

I don't see that happening with either Trump, or Biden. Trump because he's too course with the democrats, especially now. And Biden because he's just the same crony democrat that he's always been. They say jump and he just ask "how hi?" in return.

Maybe if we got Gabbard as president?
She'd be ready and willing to cut DoD spending at least and she's addressed the need for infrastructure.
 
Incorrect on all counts. The Russians have more nuclear weapons than the United States. And nuclear winter is a pure myth that even its author, Carl Sagan, admitted before he died.

And the idea that "one" nuclear weapon would make the "world unlivable" is too stupid to bother refuting. You need to read something about the subject.

Russia has 1600+/- active nuclear weapons.

As of 2019, the U.S. has an inventory of 6,185 nuclear warheads; of these, 2,385 are retired and awaiting dismantlement and 3,800 are part of the U.S. stockpile

Nuclear weapons of the United States - Wikipedia

What are you afraid of, in Arkansas, behind 2 mountain ranges? Who is a threat to invade the US?
 
How many more nuclear weapons do you need to feel safe? We have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and multiple platforms and methods to deliver them and still conservative want to build more. Who or what are you so afraid of?
Actually our arsenal is pretty small right now.

I'd like to see us come out with the new longer-range Minuteman, go back to three warheads per missile, make them 455kt warheads, and go back to a total of 450 ICBMs.

I'd like to see us come out with those new submarines, go back to having 8 warheads per SLBM, and make them all 455kt.

That would give us:

450 x 3 = 1350 ICBM warheads

10 deployed subs x 16 missiles x 8 =1280 SLBM warheads


I also would like to see China and North Korea covered by some land-based ballistic missiles. We can't use our North American ICBMs on them because the trajectory will cross over Russia.

Perhaps some sort of small ICBMs in Guam with just enough range to cover North Korea and the eastern half of China. Or maybe we could come out with a new generation of Pershing missiles and base them in Okinawa and South Korea.



Do you understand that even using one of them will make the world unlivable for a few years because of the worldwide fallout and a nuclear winter?
It would take a lot more than one nuke to cause nuclear winter.


Russia has 1600+/- active nuclear weapons.
Don't forget their tactical nukes.
 
And nuclear winter is a pure myth that even its author, Carl Sagan, admitted before he died.
That is incorrect. The concept is real enough. But it's true that a single nuke will not cause nuclear winter.

Sagan wasn't the author. He just helped spread the message.
 
Trump budget gives top priority to new generation of nuclear weapons - World Socialist Web Site

"The most ominous feature of the new budget document issued Monday by the Trump administration is the prominent place given to the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons, including so-called low-yield weapons, smaller than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which are widely regarded as more likely to actually be used in combat."

"The Trump budget would slash spending on diplomacy and foreign aid while sharply increasing funding for nuclear weapons, a clear indication of the policy direction being given from the White House in the wake of Trump’s acquittal last week in the impeachment trial before the Senate."

————————

Trump likes nukes! Only HE has the rights to THE BUTTON!

Yes "tactical" nukes. We made artillery shell nukes in the 60's. Does Trump want those back too? The MAD protocol has stopped nuclear exchanges for 75 years and must stay in place. Why do we need more nukes we cannot use?

The W48 was an American nuclear artillery shell, capable of being fired from any standard 155 mm (6.1 inch) howitzer, e.g. the M114, M198 or M109. It was manufactured starting in 1963, and all units were retired in 1992. It was known as the M45 AFAP (artillery fired atomic projectile) in US service.
Effective firing range: 25km
In service: 1963-1994
Place of origin: United States

W48_nuclear_artillery_shell.jpg
 
We made artillery shell nukes in the 60's. Does Trump want those back too?
Not that I know of.


The MAD protocol has stopped nuclear exchanges for 75 years and must stay in place.
It will only stay in place if we have a credible force and are willing to use it.


Why do we need more nukes we cannot use?
We certainly can use them. They function quite well.

We need them to in order present a credible deterrent to our enemies.
 
Russia has 1600+/- active nuclear weapons.



Nuclear weapons of the United States - Wikipedia

What are you afraid of, in Arkansas, behind 2 mountain ranges? Who is a threat to invade the US?

Arkansas has mountain ranges? While the scenery is nice I wouldn't characterize the Ouachita or Ozarks as "mountain ranges".

And there are many more threats to U.S. interests and U.S. citizens than being invaded. What about the 100,000 American civilians who live near Seoul, South Korea? They are voters and taxpayers the same as you and I and are entitled to the same level of protection as you and I.
 
Last edited:
That is incorrect. The concept is real enough. But it's true that a single nuke will not cause nuclear winter.

Sagan wasn't the author. He just helped spread the message.

And Sagan admitted before he died that the evidence did not support the concept of nuclear winter.
 
Actually our arsenal is pretty small right now.

I'd like to see us come out with the new longer-range Minuteman, go back to three warheads per missile, make them 455kt warheads, and go back to a total of 450 ICBMs.

I'd like to see us come out with those new submarines, go back to having 8 warheads per SLBM, and make them all 455kt.

.

What's so great about 455 kiloton warheads? True the most dangerous missile warhead the U.S. has is the W88 (I think is the designation) which has a 475 kiloton yield. But the most common missile warhead we have is the W76 which has a 100 kiloton yield. If you are accurate enough, a 100 kiloton warhead will destroy or disable any significant target anyway.

Personally, if I were president, two of the foreign policy goals I wanted to pursue was

1) A global ban on all unmanned nuclear delivery platforms with ranges of more than 2,500 miles (4,000 kilometers).
2) A global ban on all nuclear weapons of more than 100 kilotons yield.
 
Arkansas has mountain ranges? While the scenery is nice I wouldn't characterize the Ouachita or Ozarks as "mountain ranges".

And there are many more threats to U.S. interests and U.S. citizens than being invaded. What about the 100,000 American civilians who live near Seoul, South Korea? They are voters and taxpayers the same as you and I and are entitled to the same level of protection as you and I.

The Appalachians and the Rockies are between you and the Atlantic and Pacific oceans respectively. You might have heard of them once or twice. I'm tired of my tax dollars being used to being the world's cops and protector. Outside of major cities, the US is now a 2nd world country in many areas but as long as we have guns for the cops and for Bubba, and a bloated military that is all the conservtives want because they are afraid of everything and need to feel safe from anyone who thinks differently or isn't just like they are.
 
The Appalachians and the Rockies are between you and the Atlantic and Pacific oceans respectively. You might have heard of them once or twice. I'm tired of my tax dollars being used to being the world's cops and protector. Outside of major cities, the US is now a 2nd world country in many areas but as long as we have guns for the cops and for Bubba, and a bloated military that is all the conservtives want because they are afraid of everything and need to feel safe from anyone who thinks differently or isn't just like they are.

An even more ridiculous post of yours.
 
An even more ridiculous post of yours.

This is another brilliant rebuttal.

Instead of claiming that it is ridiculous, you should have made a counter-argument pointing out my supposed flaws. But you did not. :roll:
 
This is another brilliant rebuttal.

Instead of claiming that it is ridiculous, you should have made a counter-argument pointing out my supposed flaws. But you did not. :roll:

Claiming that people wanting a larger military are "afraid" of anything is idiotic. I want a military that can impose the will of the U.S. anywhere in the world. That is not the least related to fear of any kind.

And calling the U.S. military "bloated" is ridiculous. It is something like only about 60% as large as it was at the end of the Cold War. Despite being involved in more shooting conflicts and having more overseas commitments.

That enough "counterargument" for you?
 
Back
Top Bottom