The one sad thing that my father who is 99 and myself who is 65 have in common is we both might only have a year or 2 max left on this planet as long as donnie the dictator and his bigoted administration and spineless republicans are in charge.
I guess the good news it every one of donnie family members and all republicans who voted for him have shortened their lives as well.
2
This is Trump’s only solution unfortunately
Despoiling American politics isn't enough. He's got to destroy the entire planet.
1
And for this he is going to cut Medicaid for sick people.
1
In the 50's the US bankrupted the Russian's in the weapons race, Russia is only trying to do the same to the US, we don't even know if they really have such a thing. Oh wait, were already bankrupt I forgot.
2
Trump and the war prep profit industry are busy budgeting for our very own Doomsday Machine by throwing money at everything from "low yield" warheads to "Space Force" Star Wars nonsense. We would do well to remember President Obama's remark that nuclear war planning, financing and preparation is "INSANE."
1
OK, I'm tired of Donald's hands in everything. Why more and bigger missiles? Can we get all the swinging dix out of Washington and elect our first female President?
1
No, just no.
1
Well surprise surprise... more military expansion and cost. Maybe His Majesty’s jester -one Mulvaney- should stop stealing $$$ from the military for Trumpo’s wall. Let alone attempting to get his buddy Putin to sign some new arms control agreement. Whether we are all killed by a B 58 dropping nukes or hyperspeed missiles makes no difference.
1
Little boys who are bullies love their weapons!
1
One definition of insanity
The Antichrist cannot be bothered with the needs off the ill and downtrodden, for he has a whole world to end.
2
Pure transfer marketing. If it ignites the synapses of the reptilian brain for the the electoral college/gerrymandered crowd, Trump is all in. That's all he needs.
1
All the king’s horses and all the kings men didn’t stop 9/11. A cyber attack could shut down a number of vital systems. Our electoral system is under attack. Are we fighting today’s wars with yesterday’s weapons? There may be a good reason for more up to date military equipment ,but if there is then be honest with the public and raise taxes to pay for for them. Trump seems to be running the country like he runs his businesses. Can bankruptcy be far behind.?
2
We are in desperate need of a new arms control agreement. Barring that we will at some point probably blow ourselves up if the climate doesn't get us first. Thank you Mr. Trump.
3
In the late 1960s I read a study, done by a team of prominent nuclear experts and political scientists, designed to prove that the Army would be the force of the future after an Armageddon like nuclear war.
Long declassified, the study was sponsored by a major company in the Military Industrial Complex. The first stage of the study postulated massive fallout from the MAD effects of mutually wiping out silo based missiles (the now highly vulnerable ones planners wish to maintain. Because of the jet stream and other climate features, the fall out would devastate the U.S., what is now Russia, China and everything in between.
Some fall out would leak into the Southern Hemisphere but not much. The future would belong to nations south of the Equator, Brazil and other South American countries, Australia. New Zealand, much of Indonesia, etc. But the study somehow postulated that the U.S. would survive as a major power after losing much of its population and a good deal of infrastructure to something resembling a nuclear winter.
And in this Unbrave New World, our nation would be called upon to keep the peace, or something, through using the Army to suppress what? Restless Natives? Hordes of migrants, presumably headed way south, rather than to a devastated America?
Trump's strategy might force negotiations but in his dog eat dog world, it is likely to bring nuclear war. Deterrence, relying on submarines, remains the least risky and strategy.
Less cost, too.
4
We will all go together when we go (including the Trump family).
1
To paraphrase Marie Antoinnette: "Let them eat plutonium." It's going to be interesting, watching The Don sell his base on the idea that nuclear weapons are a better way to spend federal resources than, say, healthcare or food stamps or housing assistance. You know, those federal benefits that directly assist folks in The Don's s-called "base." I suppose we could have block parties, in which every block sponsors a part of a bomb.
2
These "missiles are particularly hard to defend against because they follow an unpredictable path to a target...at tremendous speed."
Umm, even currently deployed missiles are hard to defend against. Despite hundreds of billions of dollars spent on anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems, current and anticipated capabilities are incapable of downing more than a few attackers even in a limited attack, let alone if the Russians went all in.
The only difference hypersonic missiles make is that they raise the stakes for warning systems. Instead of a half-hour of warning between launch and detonation on target, there would be but a few minutes. Given the unreliability of warning systems, a decision on what to do would need to be quick, vastly raising the stakes of a mistake.
And what could be realistically done?
Little beyond completing the suicide pact that is implicit in being a nuclear-armed nation. This would take down the opponents, but would also destroy via fallout the rest of the world.
Name any foreign policy or national interest that is served by the implicit suicide pact possession of these weapons entails? I can't think of one and neither should you listen to anyone who suggests this situation is anything short of being exactly that. It is in this light that these seemingly all-powerful weapons should be seen as lacking in military utility, except as deterrence against their use by others, which requires far fewer weapons than presently deployed, not more.
4
It's hard to speak about nuclear weapons as a Canadian whose country will never possess them but I do agree that if you're going to have such weapons you should be constantly modernizing and maintaining them.
That said no country should be expanding their nuclear arsenals. Even after post Cold War nuclear deescalation there are enough warheads today to end the world many times over.
2
Finally. I hear the 2020 hurricane season is going to be bad this year. The best hurricane deterrence is a strong offense. Praise to Our Dear Leader for his vision and wisdom!
I suppose that the upside is that when a new nuclear arms race leads to global destruction, at least we won't need to worry about climate change ... or social security ... or medicare ... or education ... or the Constitution.
1
During the December 15. 2015 presidential debate Trump was asked what his priority was in the nuclear triad. He ignored the question, warning against Syrian nuclear proliferation and said “I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me.” Trump clearly had no idea what the nuclear triad was. Then candidate Marco Rubio had to school him: “The triad is the ability of the United States to conduct nuclear attacks using airplanes, using missiles launched from silos or from the ground, and also from our nuclear subs’ ability to attack.”
Given Trump's incompetence, ignorance and inability to learn the existential consequences of nuclear proliferation, the world should be put on watch and genuinely fear his new proposals.
5
We literally have thousands of domestic infrastructure projects that need funding a heck of a lot more than an weapons systems.
When is someone going to have the guts to propose cutting the Pentagon's budget in half to fund needed domestic spending?
3
I'm reading a lot of comments about building up our nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. That a hefty arsenal means that no one will go to nuclear war. However, we have a president who wants to increase our nuclear weapons stock and make it bigger and better and this same president said as a candidate back in 2016, "Why have them (nuclear weapons) if you're not going to use them?" That's pretty chilling. Add to that his base of evangelicals who want him to bring on the Rapture and a Secretary of State who is one of those evangelicals, mix well with Trump's obvious insanity and what do you have? A terrifying future!
4
There's just no money for the big defense contractors in the war on terror. Not enough obsolete hardware platforms to drive profits. Who is paying Trump to push this agenda?
1
There goes our infrastructure money.
5
This man is determined to extinguish not only our Democracy but the entire planet.
4
Years ago, some very smart people both in the USA and the USSR thoroughly gamed nukes out and concluded that they could not be used to anybody's advantage, so we started controls. Then came Reagan, and to their uselessness, he added that they were immoral and an abomination (the one thing Ronald Reagan said with which I totally agree.) Now the current occupant of the White House wants more nukes because.....he just wants more nukes. The House and the Senate , and the Pentagon, should thwart this nonsense from our demented so-called President.
3
There's nothing like living back in the '50's, is there? I guess Trump enjoyed squatting under his desk at school during air raid drills. Can't wait for the return of black and white TV's with "rabbit ears" antennae!
1
Perhaps sunlight blockage by the nuclear winter that follows our self-annihilation might be the ultimate carbon offset.
That's an upside in this existentially dangerous regression in US nuke policy, I guess.
1
Stability and peace is achieved through diplomacy, education, and helping others. Climate change will end us before these lunatics do. Vote blue, no matter who.
2
A new arms race is already going. Gone are the days of Gorbachev/Reagan. The neo cold warriors of both parties are exploding the Pentagon budget. Trump sees his weapons policy as a form of chest thumping. Short range nuclear missiles will soon be back in Europe. China is a third major player which hadn't figured seriously in the new nuclear arms negotiations. They seem determined not be seen as an add on to a Russian/US deal. The tensions have risen significantly since Obama and Putin reached New Start treaty.
4
This new nuclear submarine won't be named Trump2020? In gold letters gothic style? You sure?
6
Live by the nuke, die by the nuke.
11
So let's see how all the Christian evangelical GOP Voters line-up behind DT's latest budget to cut funds for education, the needy and the sick by increasing funds for weapons of mass destruction and taking on ten's of billions of new debt.
Their Hypocrisy is beyond understanding.
34
@GTM
Actually, hypocrisy is rather intrinsic to religiosity.
1
The only education an evangelical needs is on Sunday morning as far as they are concerned. Cuts in education are a feature, not a bug.
2
Almost EVERYTHING Trump does is macho.
6
@jhanzel If the definition of "macho" means dimwitted, ill advised, not thought completely through, and without any regard to the obviously consequences I completely agree. The blind ignorance on display by this defence proposal is exactly why the far more aware and educated members of the Science and Security Board
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists recently moved the Doomsday Clock to 100 seconds to midnight. It is the closest it has ever been including during the cold war. Speaking as an ex-military officer who was the last generation of cold war officers, I have no confidence in anyone in the Trump administration to lead this country in any type of conflict.
5
This is an incredible waste of money and extremely dangerous. World War III?
19
Why do we need more missiles and warheads? Putin has already won the next war.
12
@Steve It's in Putin's interest to see us squander our vast wealth on weapons that we can never use.
4
"[S]trategists have debated whether the United States could abandon its ground-based nuclear missiles, spread out in silos across the West. They are considered highly vulnerable and so old — many of them date to the 1970s — that they are a hazard."
It's not the age of the land-based ICBM force in the West that makes them a hazard. It's the very existence of this force upwind of the bulk of the American population.
In the use-it-or-lose-it preliminaries to nuclear war, these prime targets are well-known. Each one is targeted by multiple warheads in order to ensure their destruction when the "balloon goes up." Because these targets are hardened and deeply buried, these attacks will be with warheads designed for either surface bursts or even subsurface explosions. This would lift masses of earth and whatever was on it into the air as fallout.
Floating on the prevailing west to east wind patterns, these plumes would merge into massive clouds of fallout that would be carried east, inundating Americans on a first trip around the world. This would kill millions even if no nearby blasts affected them immediately.
The total yield, far in excess of the 60 megaton level at which global fallout effects become a danger to the planet's population, of such attacks would spell the end of humankind as we know it.
It's worth noting that it's possible, given the existence of masses of missiles, that an attack on just one silo could involve 60 Mt. There are 100s of them. Do the math.
8
I went to bed last night thinking of all the big problems facing humanity and all the good that government can do for so many people. How did I not think of the need for new nuclear weapons? I'm so glad we have such a stable genius looking out for our best interests who spendsour tax dollars so wisely tackling the important issues our country is facing. What a privilege to live in a time with such enlightened stable leadership.
9
Having spent half of my career (now retired) assisting in development of materials for nuclear weapons, I can't help but ask:
Just exactly what do we need new nuclear weapons for?
Missile delivered nukes will kill 10's of thousands of civilians! That is whether it is a military target or not.
A must read for everyone is descriptions of the outcome of the very small atomic (not hydrogen) bombs dropped on Tokyo and Nagasaki.
We already have far too many weapons for mere deterrence. And in spite of that we still haven't figured out how to avoid severely destructive wars like those presently going on in the Middle East.
I can't help but think this is a Trump, the Macho Man, showing that he is a strong President with the voters fundamentally ignorant of what it means, in detail, to use such massively destructive devices.
Let's put all of that money and more into development of fusion reactors for electrical power. Clean with no nuclear waste like fission reactors.
37
@DGP Having read your post, I have to ask: why did you spend "half your career assisting in the development of materials for nuclear weapons" given your ethical compunctions?
More to the point, why should anyone take your views seriously?
@DGP One correction... We firebombed Tokyo. We didn't nuke it. It was Hiroshima and Nagasaki which we nuked. About 100,000 civilians were killed in Tokyo. In Hiroshima, it was 75,000 from the explosion, rising to 200,000 by 1950. In Nagasaki, it was 40,000, rising to 140,000. The operative word here is "civilians".
The nukes used in Japan were about 15 kilotons of TNT equivalent. Today's arsenal contains weapons which can kill 4 million people each. A hydrogen bomb ranges up to more than a million tons of TNT in strength. We have 1,400 nuclear weapons deployed. Russia has 1,500. We each have 4,000 more in our stockpiles. How many times over can the world be extinguished with that many weapons?
War is hell, yes. But war is insanity, too, especially nuclear war. We don't need more nuclear weapons. We need less, and ultimately, none.
2
It's bad enough that Donald Trump seems to be planning for some future nuclear war, but the fact that he's willing to jeopardize the lives of the millions of Americans who depend on government assistance programs, be it Food Stamps, heating subsidies or Social Security and Medicare is simply hard to fathom -- especially as he and his administration are not wiling to undergo the same hardships for the benefit of balancing the federal budget.
If anything, this is something Americans should take into consideration come Election Day.
13
@N. Smith
Donald Trump is not jeopardizing any lives as you think...Social Security and Medicare are not being touched. A lot of people on SNAP are playing the system and will be required to work possibly 20 hrs per week to get SNAP, or not at all...heating subsidies is more like a state program...Trump is doing his best to make sure people that get benefits deserve them...as it should be...
How do conservatives reconcile their claim that we can't afford programs like SNAP or Medicare for all, while at the same time budgeting close to $40 billion in one fiscal year for expanded weapons systems?
18
@SapperInTexas because they would rather keep their donors wealthy than feed the poor. That's who they are.
3
@SapperInTexas
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren want 1000 times $40 Billion over a decade for Medicare for all...can we really afford "socialism for all" which will mean much more spending for the poor and much much higher taxes for all...I for one, think people should work for what they get...they'll appreciate it more that way...
@SapperInTexas This is really simple: Money to kill is always justified, money to heal is something you should have spent your time before birth socking away, because that is the only part of your life they are willing to give you a pass on.
1
For 75 years, nation's leaders and their military's have hid behind millions of the citizen's as shields and treasure to build their empires of insanity. They will never change and to believe the weapons will never be used is fantasy.
Make plans to leave America for new lives in peaceful non-nuclear, smaller nations in the southern hemisphere where the poison fallout will take a long time to reach through the trade winds zones and most poison will likely dissipate before getting there.
Don't get upset. We are the sane ones who want a peaceful life. They are the ones with the weapons attracting trouble.
But here is the beauty of the idea; if a great number of us peace lovers leave America for new lands, those wielding the weapons will be exposed from behind the population they were hiding behind and gaining treasure from. They will then realize they are targets without the deterrent of the population shield and they will then be amenable to peace having no chance of winning a war.
5
As con-men, Trump and the Republicans are shrewd: They already further enriched the rich with tax cuts that helped only the rich. Now, they scheme to get even richer by firing up the production lines of the Military Industrial Complex. Will Haliburton be on board with it? It and Dick Cheney were all in on the invasion of Iraq, another tragic money maker. Meanwhile, as Marco Rubio has acknowledged, they plan to cut Medicare and Social Security to address the deficit. Truth is, the greatest production line ever set in motion is the Republicans' exploitation of U.S. citizens who fall for their claims of conservatism and patriotism.
17
There’s a 100% certainty this budget was written by and for defense contractor lobbyists.
Do you know how much money is in the nuclear weapon industry during a time of proliferation? A single CEO could earn enough in a year to buy their own Eastern European country, much less their own island.
They know that the odds of a nuclear weapon being used are extremely low. But, there’s the cost of the development of the weapons themselves, the facilities to build them, the facilities to house them, the mercenary private security contracts to protect them, the logistics contracts to transport them... it’s insane amounts of money. Hundreds of billions of dollars. It’s hard for a person who’s used to making $50K per year to even fathom that kind of money.
It’s like the difference between the distance from the Earth to the moon, versus the distance between the Earth and the edge of the known universe. The numbers are just so obscure and abstract, they’re incredibly difficult if not impossible to rationalize and contextualize.
It’s like Chris Rock once said, “If poor people knew how rich rich people were, they’d riot in the streets.”
15
Consider an everyday reality; it is exceedingly rare that a cop shoots an unarmed victim. The same would hold true if we disarmed our nuclear weapons.
1
@PATRICK - But the cop doesn't take a 20 mm autocannon to a knife fight ...
I can't help but wonder if the investment should be more in defending against cyber-attack - especially a Pearl Harbor-like nationwide cyber-attack against the financial infrastructure.
We keep hearing in the news about China or other actors stealing our personal information and some pundits are thinking that they'd use such information to extort VIPs in security or elsewhere.
But, to me, that's a waste almost. By using cyber-robots which are ubiquitous today, a state-actor can plan and carry-out an attack against all American citizens. For instance, by having personal information and passwords, cyber-robots can perform all sorts of financial crimes from transferring oceans of cash, conducting trades, etc., to opening up billions of fake credit card or loan accounts (or approvals!). It would be a nightmare to have to clean all that up as it brings our financial system down...
5
The US is not starting a new arms race.
It is responding to the dangerous technical achievements of our potential adversaries.
What’s funny, of course, is how Dems and ‘progressives’ suddenly don’t want to be so tough on Russia.
2
@EGD Moving the yardstick from being able to eradicate humanity 500 times to 600 times over is not being tough on anybody. It is a testosterone driven urinating contest.
Using this stuff is suicidal. It stopped being a useful policy tool long ago.
We need policy tools that do not involve nuclear brinkmanship. Its this hard to understand? Instead we seem to be moving back to the style of playing chicken that led to the first world war.
1
He really does want to destroy the world.
10
How is he going to pay for this?
9
@John Hoppe
By "he" I assume you mean Trump. Well, he isn't going to pay for this...he never pays for anything. You and I are going to pay for this. It's the Republican/Trump way.
2
@John Hoppe
With his cuts to social security, medicare and Medicaid.
Again the middle class and the elderly will pay for it.
3
@John Hoppe ...don't worry, Mexico will pay for it...
2
The idea of thermo nuclear weapons and global digital media is oxymoronic.
The Great Trump wants to make all the money in the world from a customer base that he is threatening with Nuclear Destruction??
In an era of international tourism, smart phones and when manufacturing and trade is based on international cooperation we have an angry dunce who has collapsed national identity into his ego and is now telling the world that it is his way or the highway.
How absurd!
8
He's the road to canceling New START as well. I can't even bring myself to read the article.
Two good reads for Trump would be 'Doomsday Machine' by Ellsberg, and the gobsmacking Command and Control (Author name escapes me at the moment).
Did I actually say 'reads for Trump'!?
(Huge laugh/cry emoji here!)
4
Instead of balooning the deficit with another nuclear arms race. Trump should be worrying about the loss of our Asian-Pacific allies, now gravitating toward China. The latest defection of the Philippines, announced by Duterte -- a dictator Trump admired and considered a pal -- is far more significant than Trump's desire for more nuclear toys. Last I heard ISIS, the Taliban and al Shabab terrorists who attacked our base in Kenya hadn't yet acquired nukes or submarines.
6
Perhaps we should remember whose side Trump is really on - Putin's.
8
@Brookhawk
Is that why he imposed new sanctions on Moscow for violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty?
It is the continuation of the Obama policy
From the NY Times, 2016
"A Trillion-Dollar Nuclear Weapon Modernization Is Unnecessary"
"President Obama has authorized a nuclear modernization program that would cost $1 trillion, that’s a “T,” over the next 30 years. This is unnecessary. "
"it will impose an increasing burden on the defense budget, making it difficult to maintain our conventional military superiority – the real guarantee of U.S. security. "
NY Times, Oct 26, 2016,
It was foolish then, but the foolishness continuous , unabated.
4
@Woof
1 Trillion is a small price to pay so your kids, and mine don't have to learn Chinese and be watched 24 hours a day and report weekly to the communist block leader about their parents and neighbors...which could happen under a weak president that cuts way back on the military readiness...China or Russia would love to see us weak so that they could make plans to invade and take over our country...
I marched in the NYC No Nukes parade in 1982.
They came after me.
I won't give up.
Everyone leave the country to live peacefully and so the military can't hide behind us.
2
Our Fearless Leader: Let's ignore the very real existential threat of global warming and exacerbate the threat of nuclear annihilation.
7
Just what we need, more nuclear bombs. We can't pay our debts, Grandma can't afford her medications, children go to bed hungry, we are about to take social security from the elderly who worked all their lives and we are going to spend money on more bombs. We live in an insane asylum? We are truly sick.
8
Though I despise Trump, the fact is that our nuclear deterrent is ancient and essentially obsolete. Another fact is that in the overall scheme of things nuclear weapons provide a bigger bang for your buck since they offer a guarantee that other countries would not dare attack you for the fear of nuclear retaliation. Israel and North Korea are obvious examples of this type of strategic deterrence. Furthermore, like anything made by man nuclear warheads have an expiration date mandated not only from the degradation of its mechanical components but by the half life of their nuclear components themselves. Whether it was Trump or another president these are realities that no defense expert of any party could ignore. Though any sane person would like nuclear weapons to be a thing of the past you simply cannot put the genie back in the bottle you can only manage it, hopefully wisely.
3
@Ed Setting our arsenal off anywhere would kill everyone. It only matters how many times over we can destroy the world to a bean counter.
2
@Ed
By your reasoning every country needs nuclear weapons for strategic deterrence.
Wisdom???
If the US spent as much time perfecting the art of diplomacy, getting people to the table and keeping them there to talk and listen for however long it takes to find common ground, compromises and resolution...
Military solutions only create more hate and more terrorists, killing, maiming, ruining lives, wrecking countries...
This planet is too small and fragile for reliance on military solutions, nuclear or otherwise.
Perhaps, humans, will be simply one more failed species.
2
@Ed: this is an excellent example of, say, 1964 thinking.
You may not know that during the Obama Administration, a broad scale effort was undertaken to overhaul and upgrade the nation's nuclear capabilities. So the concern you express that our weaponry is obsolete is not accurate. Obama's team believed in limiting nuclear weapons worldwide, while maintaining America's superiority -- but without breaking the bank with a constant steam of new toys, as appears to be the case with the Trump regime.
2
Sure, then we can spend more money on dismantling the weaponry later, unless we use it, and are spending due to the consequences. Great investment.
2
We're being hacked on a daily basis by a laundry list of nations. We're getting crushed in the information war while wasting money on missiles and Star Wars. We haven't known how to fight a war since the 1940s.
13
The U.S. needs to keep up with both Russia,China and those other nations with nuclear capabilities. Russia's supposed new hyper-sonic nuclear missile has brought back the cold war once again.The problem with this new cold war is that none have the monies to really spend on their military advancement.The economics of the world have changed drastically in the last 2 years.There has not been as much trade and thus not as much extra monies to spend on new weapons development.Neither side will benefit from another cold war !!!!!
3
@lapazjim ".Neither side will benefit from another cold war " Even less from a hot war.
4
This plan of Trump to get into nuclear arms competition is a different expression of his plan for “the wall,” except more dangerous in existential terms and surely far more expensive. What a waste! What unimaginative “thinking!” And we could do so much good for the world ... and by that, for ourselves. One has to wonder what the effects of “prayer breakfasts” are. On the other hand, Tillerson’s characterization (as once reported) of the man Trump seems exactly correct. And then there’s Trump’s military advisors.
5
You have to first ask yourself, What is the end game that both China and Russia are pursing with their military capabilities and territorial expansion? I do not believe that anyone denies their military capability expansion. I do not believe any denies China’s expansion to control more of the South China Sea or what Russia has done in the Crimean. Just a few example. To what end? What does that mean to the rest of the free world?
Historically, the track record and options are not been good when the end game is finally revealed. Unfortunately, the world has been able to overcome the reveal but at a unfathomable price. Do we allow ourselves to be placed in a position that Churchill was forced shout the reality, “How do you negotiate with a Tiger when your head is in its’ mouth?”
This game of Chess will continue, it must continue so that the only possible outcome is a draw and buy time for the world to eventually grow up and finally end the game.
DLW
1
Ah ! How happy the arms-makers will be to know more billions will be spent on armaments so they may continue their extravagant lifestyle.
Luckily trump, like other past presidents, is willing to comply.
This, of course, requires an occasional war to justify their thievery.
6
@JFP They're already booking their next vacation to Canto Bight.
For an individual, it's rational to prioritize food on the table before purchase of handguns. Does having a nice handgun keep your kids from being hungry? What's your priority?
As a nation, the Administration is proposing to cut food stamps while providing increased funding to new weapons programs.
See the parallel? What's your priority?
5
Mr Trump repays his big business supporters by giving them tax breaks, so Apple, and the others can move more to China, while American citizens foot the bill.
These weapons that Mr Trump wants to buy.
Who will they be aimed at?
4
@Bill They won't be aimed at Putin, that's for sure.
Arms are for hugging. This government, "by the people and for the people" needs to wage more love and less war.
2
@Ned Trump's budget might just be a case of Miss Piggy hugging missiles.
So much for the START of the Deal under the trump.
The toxic nuclear ego wants a nuclear arsenal to match. What could possibly go wrong?
The trump and Putin depend on each other and the appearance and pretense of acting in their national security, countering imagined threats they are responsible for creating in their desperation to hold on to power.
"Trump wants a stronger hand in negotiations." Nuclear weapons are not meant for negotiations - they are for bullying, just as massive arsenals of wealth are used to bully and subjugate mere citizens and whole nations.
At least a medieval wall is better than yet another nuclear weapon system - except the toxic guy in chief wants BOTH - cashing checks our country's taxpayers can't afford to cash.
Perhaps a nuclear winter is trump's solution to global warming!
3
Tens of billions for new missiles.
$700 billion in annual Defense Department spending
....with another $300 billion in annual defense spending in other parts of the budget...for a total of roughly $1 trillion in annual defense spending.
And a few nickels to defend against Russian-Chinese-North Korean-Iranian hacking of America's computer systems, voting systems and deeply flawed corporate systems that hold all of our private personal data.
This Administration is living in the Cold War era and is completely out of touch with the dangers of the 21st century, including the need to increase funding for the CDC, the NIH, science, technology and infrastructure.
Americans need to reject these right-wing Republican fossils, especially since they refuse to pay for any of their war toys with a stable taxation system.
More deadly nuclear missiles on a credit card: intellectual, moral and economic bankruptcy on a GOP platter.
Vote these fossils out of office.
November 3 2020.
60
@Socrates Los Alamos budget has been growing steadily for the past decade+, so that would include entirety of Obama administration.
1
@Bx What,exactly, does that have to do with Trump's willingness to dump the nuclear pack with Russia?
4
This is the direct result of Trump's abject failure to impress Kim Jong-Un. Trump is still pouting that Kim didn't immediately fall down in obedience to the orange-haired President, and like the child he is, Trump is responding with a plan to build even more deadly toys.
What a baby!
6
@PaulB67 -The US has 20 aircraft carriers and the rest of the world has 24. It's difficult to determine the cost of the US carriers but according to one source the final cost( up-dates, maintenance etc.) of a Nimitz class carrier is about $22 billion-- each. The new Ford class cost $8 billion to construct and does not include the up-dates and maintenance. The Gerald Ford cost $13 billion.
How many carriers does Russia have-- two. Also, N.Korea has zero.
3
Meanwhile the deficit explodes thanks to Trump’s tax cuts for the rich, and he cuts benefits for the poor like Medicaid and Food stamps.
Republican priorities right in your face.
10
The problem is if you don't have a stronger military than your opponent...they can intimidate you into doing something you don't want to do...like giving in to what they want...or even starting a nuclear war...so it's best to have a strong military so you are not intimidated but can go about your business without being told by another nation about how you can do it...
@ORnative But who are our opponents? It sure isn't Putin these days. Are we showing we can't be intimidated, or are we just augmenting Russian power? When our president (according to his son) is getting his money from Russia, do you really think he's going to threaten them in any way?
2
More of the same. This is America now. Shout loudly and threaten the biggest stick. In its wisdom, the American voter installed a president who doesn't read, believes conspiracy theories, feuds with dead senators, hurls insults at National Prayer Breakfasts and believes he is a brilliant negotiator. His genius at negotiation boils down to:
1. Ask for more than you want.
2. Threaten and bluster
3. Lie constantly
Truly groundbreaking stuff. Obviously other world powers will be baffled by these tactics for years to come. Rest easy, America, you are in good, stubby hands.
6
Putin must be whispering in his ear and of course that's who he listens to, his hero. No, we do not need any more weapons of destruction. His budget is a joke. What does someone who went bankrupt 6 times know about a budget. His cuts include social security and education. This should certainly alarm his naive supporters. Listen up before its too late.
2
@Sari " His cuts include social security and education. This should certainly alarm his naive supporters. "
It would if they understood what was going on.
3
I'm confused. Trump has repeatedly told us what wonderful guys Putin and Xi are. Why then do we need to be worried about them if they are such good friends?
5
@Steve It's not that he's worried about Putin, from whom he gets his money (according to his son). It's more like he's being ready to augment Putin's power. Between the two of them, I can see them dividing up the world if they get half the chance.
2
We need two more war heads: Universal Healthcare, and a humane and consistent policy on immigration
1
More money for weapons that can literally destroy the entire world, but not a cent for health care. Our country is insane.
9
Dear Stable Genius,
Why all that money on new nuclear weapons when we have an global environmental meltdown that even military leaders agree is the number 1 security risk to the world?
4
A more effective approach to ensuring lasting peace than investing billions into weapon systems which can never be used and fail to deter our adversaries from increasing their own similar stockpiles would be to completely and unilaterally dismantle our inventory of nuclear weapons. To what end do we build ever more powerful and numerous nuclear weapons which can never be rationally used? Imagine what the world would be like if we had not one nuke. Who cares if Russia has thousands? They would have wasted precious billions on them with no hope of ever using them. Look at their involvement in Afghanistan to see how debilitating fighting unwinnable wars have been to them. Even they would welcome a drawback from nuclear weapons.
America has sufficient conventional weapons to deter any other country on earth, with or without their own nuclear weapons. And nukes are products of an old and antiquated style of warfare. The more important system to counter now is cyber. For a mere pittance, almost any country can develop the skills to effectively neuter critical American infrastructures like our power grid. We no longer need the ineffective deterrence of nukes. Now we need the capabilities to fight emerging weapon systems and not those of the past.
12
@Max Dither Wild agreement. The American nuclear "umbrella" was only effective when America was the only nuclear power. As soon as that monopoly ended (basically back in the 1950s), it became a weapon that could never be used.
1
@Max Dither
Sanders is the candidate whose foreign policy most emphasizes diplomacy, getting people around the table, keeping them there. listening and talking, looking for common ground...
You want a better, safer world, vote Sanders for sanity, wisdom, integrity, and bold ideas, vision and courage!
A Future To Believe In!
and courage to take on the Military Industrial Complex and its Washington supplicants!
with his army of supporters right there with him!
Two other illegitimate reasons Trump wants to bring the "United States is back in the nuclear weapons business" 1) Trump is always obsessed with having the biggest and shiniest things, 2) it supports the military industrial complex, one of the GOP's best friends, 3) spending more on military means less spending for social programs, and 4) it will further irk liberals. Oops, that's 4 illegitimate reasons.
25
@Steve Our Nucks are aging, they will need to be replaced around the 2040-2060 timeframe. The Russians, the Chinese, India, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea are upgrading and improving. the LGM-30 Minuteman 3 will be obsolete in the 2030s. The Russians are having low yield nukes in to "shock and awe" the west. And because our Nuclear weapons are basically for doomsday scenario we would not be able to do anything.
Bone spurs: bone growth projections that develop along that develop on the edges of the bone that eliminates the conscience.
Side affects: Avoidance of military service. Increased knowledge of fighting and warfare - often greater than the generals have (certainly more than those who have stood in harms way). Delusions of grandeur. Desire to start wars so that others must serve.
15
How many nuclear submarines, nuclear weapons and nuclear missiles do Boko Haram, al Qaeda, al Shabaab, ISIS,Taliban, etc. have?
America lost a war to North Vietnam and the Viet Cong.
America lost a war to China and North Korea.
America is losing the wars in Afghanistan, Congo, Gaza, Iraq, Jordan, Kurdistan, Pakistan,South Sudan, Syria, West Bank and Yemen.
33
@Blackmamba
You are correct on many parts but not on the Korean War. The object of the North was to conquer the South. Sou Korea is free thanks to us and many other countries fighting under the United Nations flag. I am a Korean War Veteran and I was awarded the United Nations Service Medal along with the Korean War Service Medal. We had Turks, Greeks, Brits fighting also as well as Indian and Norwegian Ambulance and Medical Folks.
There was no object to conquer China or North Korea but, rather, a return to the status quo, despite General MacArthur’s objections with Truman.
1
This is exactly why Putin wanted his guy in the White House. In some sense trump is more prone to take the bait than W Bush was. Putin talks of hypersonic weapons. Yea right! Trump thinks I can’t let them do that, so let’s cut most social programs and go toe to toe with the russkies. Just like out of dr strangelove. We have the largest defense department and military budget in the world. Who sits at the top? A failed casino owner. He never even owned them. He rolled the dice and the taxpayers paid for his failures. If we can’t defend our country with what we have then we are being fleeced. One more time the don wants to roll the taxpayers dice. Shame on you republicans, Your no more fiscally conservative than my teenage son. Yet your all in with a cuckoo brain.
29
@William Well said!
1
Who is he planning on shooting them at, any idea?
17
When Trump screwed up in business taking risks to make more money for himself, his father's money and bankruptcy laws kept him above water. Applying this strategy to national security, if not handled by competent people, could lead to disaster. Start investing in bomb shelters. The '50s are back, minus competent government.
19
No. Absolutely not. I do not want any more nuclear weapons built. Period.
The notion that a nuclear war is winnable is absurd. It is idiocy in the extreme.
The fact that there are people considering them as viable options suggests a depravity so extreme as to be seen an incarnation of the truly evil masquerading as a sound or reasoned mind. They are anything but.
There is nearly no one alive now who has first hand experience of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and we have no cultural recollection of the hell we created. The bombs used to devastate Japan were tiny compared to those available to ‘planners’ now.
Ideas of the destructive power our modern weapons will wreak are at best notions, afterthoughts, eliciting of a shrugged shoulder at best. This insouciance is dangerous. An ‘average’ yield bomb detonated over say the Empire State Building would create a central fireball roughly from Wall Street to 72nd street with absolutely everything in that radius vaporized. The heat, pressure and radiation effects would extend out in all directions from there for many miles, essentially rendering Manhattan and a good portion of the boroughs uninhabitable. The death toll would be enormous..from just one bomb. We already have thousands of these ugly tools in the world’s arsenal. I predict that there will at least one detonation in the next ten years or so. Broadcast live over the internet, people will finally understand what these things truly are, and then they will be banned forever.
12
It’s time for the middle class to stop paying federal taxes.
22
The United Kingdom and its dominions did not win the wars of the 20th century (including WWI & WWII) by engaging in arms races. Quite the contrary. They were content to let the Italians, Japanese, Soviets and Germans ruin their own economies. I don’t know what history books Trump studied from in school, but he should have read more George Marshall and Frederick the Great, and less Machiavelli and Sun Tzu.
6
@William Carter I think you are giving him way too much credit. I will bet you we will find out that he never actually graduated from whichever school he claims to have attended. The only "books" he read were magazines (more than likely Playboy, not Forbes).
7
If the new conflicts will be economic and cyber security please explain how more missiles and drones will help us win them.
17
Two ways to create millions of starving and homeless people not long for this world in one budget! How much better can it get?
First you can take their food rations, and then you can create nuclear winter and destroy what food it left. It's brilliant! Gets rid of all the riffraff!
12
John F. Kennedy has something important to say about this in June 1963.
2
Our “president” doesn’t want to get along with the rest of the world...he wants to dominate. Be careful what you wish for Mr. T.
7
We are descending into another nuclear nightmare by renewing the nuclear arms race. No one can win a nuclear war. Today there are more than enough nuclear war heads deployed to blow the Earth to smithereens.
The $19 billion cost of developing new nuclear war heads is just an initial ante. These proposed programs will cost trillions of dollars to fully develop.
A renewed nuclear arms race between Russia and the U.S. is no strategy, but rather a suicide pact.
The media and the presidential candidates should make these nuclear weapons issues a top priority in the upcoming election. Anything less is whistling past the graveyard.
Mark Muhich
Sierra Club Nuclear Free Core Team
Jackson MI
17
The article fails to mention that France is dropping its arsenal since it rejoined the NATO integrated military structure in 2009 and under Macron has rejoined the NATO Nuclear Arm as well. They are currently defended by US and Allied weapons deployed in Europe. The US nuclear arsenal is outdated, as most of the current weapons were designed and built in the 1960s and have exceeded their expected lifespan. It would be nice to see a more balanced and researched article in the NYTimes.
1
If we worked to end all nukes wouldn't the world be safe place? Then maybe we could all have health care?
11
Trump is cutting funding for science and medical research, healthcare, and food for the poor. He’s not addressing water shortages in the West; flooding in the Midwest and East; and failing infrastructure. Instead we will have shiny new bombs and wealthier arms dealers. Trump is supposed to be against war but clearly not against the toys for war. No wonder the generals and admirals line up in his charades and tirades like toy soldiers. And then along comes a real epidemic - maybe he can use a few bombs to wipe out the infected.
15
@Barbara, for someone who avoided military service, Trump seems to be unusually fascinated with the trappings of the military. His Fourth of July tank exhibit comes to mind.
3
We can already destroy the world many times over. What is truly destroying the US is poor education, crumbling infrastructure that is disgraceful compared to advanced countries, and wealth inequality.
13
Command and Control. Read the book people. We have been and are still so close to "instant climate change", it makes you not want to crawl out from under your bed. Having an unstable, vindictive, mentally challenged, leader in the White House and the Kremlin makes this scenario even more complicated. We need a JFK now.
5
The Pentagon/ State Department are delusional if they believe they can drop a ‘low yield’ atomic bomb on Russia or China and not be subject to retaliation. Over the last two decades, US taxpayers have spent $6.4 Trillion (See- Costs or War; Link: watson.brown.edu/costsofwar) on wars in Afghanistan (longest war in US history), Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen. Not only have these conflicts cost the lives of thousands of our young people, they have become strategic debacles, permanently damaging our country’s economic and national security. Russian hypersonic weapons can reach the US within minutes of launch.
The US will be incinerated within an hour of any direct confrontation with Russia.
3
One hopes that our House of Representatives, currently controlled by Democrats will stop the "game of nuclear chicken" as a dangerous childish stunt with dangerous consequences.
How much more of a deficit will this country have to pay for ego, megalomania, sociopathy, and tRump's confabulations?
And by the way, this would not be the first time the Russians bragged about new technology and weapons that have no basis in reality, but pushed by Putin's propaganda. Does Russia, whose economy is the size of Italy and smaller than the state
of Texas actually believe it can confront our Defense Budget which spends more than the next seven largest defense budgets added together?
Maybe we should confront theseTrump lies, hype, hysteria and massive misinformation?
2
Why wait for climate change to fry the world lets just get it done, either obliterate ourselves or cause a nuclear winter and take the anxiety away.
One crazy man in the White House can make this decision, as he says let's flip a coin.
32
@Dave
Dave, when in history has there been a sane Emperor?
Emperor Trump is so beyond the pale that he not only thinks of himself as the Emperor of America, but is now actually acting like the first “Emperor of the World”.
9
"...like the first “Emperor of the World”"
Small wonder he and other warlords-slash-aspiring-emperors like duterte and the nutty yahoo want the UN out of the equation. Can't let pesky annoyances like "humanitarian aid", "international law", or "treaties" get in the way of a Crimean merger or a good ol' Shock-and-Awe.
“ “This started under President Obama, but they consciously made no choices because the bill wasn’t due yet,” said Stephen Young, the Washington representative of the global security program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Now the Trump administration has put new projects on the table.””
No one thought a protofascist conman, a failed steak salesman, germophobe, and megalomaniacal casino goon, would ascend to the presidency and bring all his delusions to the world stage. But here we are.
60
Thank you for the best description of our president that I have heard to date.
11
@Jonas Kaye How I wish it were not so!
2
The fig leaf of promises is gone. The proposed budget clearly shows Trump is a serious danger to world peace and the working poor. It is now more important than ever for the Democrats to field a candidate who will beat Trump. Dump Trump!
47
Excuse me. Donald Trump met in private, behind closed doors with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, such buddies. Did they speak about outdoing each other’s arms programs? I doubt it.
But Trump expects us as tax payers to support more of our hard earned money going to arms, essentially, to keep Russia at bay?
Cut programs for humanity - Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, school funding, food stamps, environmental resources....
Supporting and funding programs for the needy would be nothing to boast about from the president’s pedestal, would it? Whoa, not like almighty nuclear missiles ready to fire!
63
@MIMA
Emperor Trump wants Kim Jong-un to call him “Big Rocket-Man”.
7
Right...weapons of mass destruction are fine, but social welfare and infrastructure are not.
6
This is a strategic part of Trumps environmental plan. A nuclear war will lower population levels and provide a much needed cloud cover to bring on the nuclear winter we need to end global warming.
25
that would assume that djt could string three thoughts together on one topic.
1
I was on a ballistic missile submarine that did a missile system refit. This wasn't that long ago - but we got a new design already. It can hit anything in the world. What upgrades could you possibly want from that? What a colossal waste of money.
85
But they still need to link it all to a "smart" "app" so it can be hijacked over Wi-Fi! How else will putin blackmail the sub crew with their own personal info?
It’s crazy to think that this insane man, in a fit of rage, could launch destruction on the entire world!
51
@Kevin Bitz
Remember when he asked why the U.S. didn't use the nuclear weapons in the Middle East? Trump lusts to use them for that buzz of cruelty and ultimate power over "other people". Not the stable person who should be in control.
38
@poslug
We should have used tactical nukes on the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan within 24 hours of identifying that as the source of the 9/11 attacks. Osama bin Laden and most of the al quaeda would have been eliminated before they went in hiding. There would have been no 18 year losing war or occupation needed.
Given the respect for power and ruthlessness in the Arab culture, the deference value would have been huge.
@Kevin Bitz
It's not that crazy.
Many moons ago, I was taught in International Geopolitical Crisis Regions about Mutual !Assured Destruction and how
"you can only make the rubble bounce so many times."
Our stable genius wants to know he can make the rubble bounce as many times as he'd like.
Great. Just great.
35
@Walter Egogh My advice, in a class taught by a 2 star General, was this: if you know nukes are coming, go outside, sit down in a lawn chair, and take deep breaths.
2
What a time to be alive. American leadership and diplomacy, the true power that generations fought and died for, being carelessly squandered with each passing day, it seems.
What a waste—of money, time and power.
93
Leaving the US to work in the Netherlands has never looked better.
83
@S Yes, for so many reasons. My husband has been offered in Europe too.