Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bananas

(27,509 posts)
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 05:16 AM Jan 2016

Rearming for the apocalypse: Beware of Obama’s nuclear weapons plan

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/01/24/beware-obama-nuclear-weapons-plan/IJP9E48w3cjLPlTqMhZdFL/story.html

Rearming for the apocalypse
By Stephen Kinzer January 24, 2016

Americans are in near-panic over the danger posed by Islamic terrorists. That danger, however, pales beside an emerging new one. President Obama has proposed a frighteningly wrongheaded plan to “modernize” our nuclear arsenal at the unfathomable cost of about $1 trillion over the next 30 years. Terror will never reach even 1 percent of our population. Nuclear “modernization” increases the prospect of true devastation.

The nuclear threat seems diffuse and faraway, while the prospect of a deranged fanatic shooting up a cinema is as vivid as today’s news. Perhaps we have been lulled into security by the fact that no nuclear weapon has been used since 1945. Voices trying to alert us to the true threat are drowned out in a frenzy of over-the-top campaign speeches and TV rants about crazed Muslims.

The most sobering of these voices belongs to William Perry, who during the 1970s and ’80s directed the development of air-launched nuclear cruise missiles and later became secretary of defense. Now Perry is campaigning against Obama’s plan to develop and buy 1,000 new missiles with adjustable nuclear capacity, 100 new long-range bombers, and a new fleet of nuclear-armed submarines. He warns that if the plan becomes real, disputes among nations will be “more likely to erupt in nuclear conflict than during the Cold War.”

<snip>

Nuclear weapons are useful for deterrence only. The United States has more than enough for that purpose. Investing huge sums in a new arsenal will not protect us from tomorrow’s threats. Most depressing, the proposal for this investment comes from a president who campaigned on a pledge to reduce and seek to eliminate nuclear weapons — and who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his apparent sincerity. Keeping our country safe requires agile thinking, not reliance on policies shaped for a bygone age.

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Rearming for the apocalypse: Beware of Obama’s nuclear weapons plan (Original Post) bananas Jan 2016 OP
This reminds me EdwardBernays Jan 2016 #1
What does modernization really mean? Renew Deal Jan 2016 #2
wikipedia has the basic info bananas Jan 2016 #3
Extremist Muslims have nothing to do with this... Blue_Tires Jan 2016 #4

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
1. This reminds me
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 05:23 AM
Jan 2016

Of the idiotic Trident Missile replacement debacle in the UK...

The ONLY reason anyone wants to replace existing nuclear weapons is to make money, for themselves and/or for their cronies..

Renew Deal

(81,859 posts)
2. What does modernization really mean?
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 08:52 AM
Jan 2016

Building additional bombs? Building new bombs and decommissioning old ones? Updating existing bombs? Building new ones to add to the old ones? If we're going to have nuclear weapons we should make sure they are effective. Otherwise, get rid of all of them.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Rearming for the apocalyp...