Since those little shits in North Korea have been testing their nuclear capabilities and also their missile technology, which by the way seems to be a bit off……the conversation in this country has been about the concern for our aging nuclear stockpiles…..
Even our president has said that we need to spend some of our “leftover” cash on a nuclear upgrade…..now that Russia is flexing some muscle the debate has gotten louder and louder…..
Lt. Gen. Jack Weinstein the deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence, today argued for the US to advance on a costly proposal to modernize and upgrade their massive arsenal of nuclear weapons, insisting that the “much more aggressive” behavior by Russia justified such a move.
Weinstein, an Air Force general whose puvieww is mostly the US nuclear arsenal, argued that history had shown that keeping huge numbers of nuclear weapons on hand “basically kept the peace” since World War II, and that he sleeps very well at night knowing the US has such a large arsenal.
Weinstein’s argument that the move is “justified” ignores the question of whether it is affordable, as estimates have put the modernization scheme’s overall cost well in excess of a trillion dollars, above and beyond an already massive military budget that continues to grow annually.
But many have pointed out that this upgrade would be expensive…..so expensive that some other program will have to take a hit to pay for this new upgrade (and we all know what that means, right?)…..some say that this new program would need about a trillion dollars (yes that is trillion with a giant “T”)……
US Strategic Command chief Gen. John Hyten continues to argue in favor of massive spending on nuclear weapons upgrades, insisting that despite the $1 trillion estimates the cost is “affordable,” and that “deterrence will always be cheaper than war.”
Hyten also faulted the idea of getting an estimate before starting the spending at all, saying getting the estimate first is “just a crazy way to build things,” and that he thinks the US should be able to build this massive arsenal “for an affordable price,” insisting it is “the most critical thing that we do in the military.”
A trillion dollars is a bit much to spend on a weapons upgrade, right? Next is…..does the USA truly need this expenditure?
Although it has not been specific about its plans, the Trump administration has promised to “greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability.”1 This seems to conflict with the assessment of Gen. John E. Hyten, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command, who has argued that “we don’t need more nuclear weapons, we just need to modernize.”2 Are the two statements consistent? What exactly is nuclear modernization? Where should the United States draw the line as it embarks on a program to replace nearly every bomb, missile, submarine, and warhead in its arsenal?
Does the world really need more nukes? Does America really need to spend a trillion dollars on more weapons?
Please….let sanity return!