In hacked audio, Clinton rethinks Obama's nuclear upgrade plan - Polidicks

[url]http://nytimes.com/2016/09/30/us/politics/hillary-clinton-obama-nuclear-policy.html?referer=[/url] [quote]Hillary Clinton expressed doubts about whether the United States should go forward with a trillion-dollar modernization of its nuclear forces at a fund-raiser in February, questioning an Obama administration plan that she has remained largely silent on in public. Mrs. Clinton also suggested she would be far tougher against foreign nations that hack into American computer networks and would kill one of the Pentagon’s pet projects, a nuclear-tipped cruise missile. “The last thing we need,” she told the audience, “are sophisticated cruise missiles that are nuclear armed.” Her comments were contained in an audio recording of the fund-raiser that appeared on the website of The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative publication, which said it was gleaned from the hack of a campaign staff member. But it said nothing about who did the hacking.[/quote]

Well, I can't say I disagree with that sentiment. The Russians have begun upgrading their nuclear arsenal yet again apparently in response to America continuing to develop anti-ICBM defensive technology and distribute it throughout Europe, in violation of an agreement with Russia. We really don't need another full-blown cold war right now, especially with how close the clock came to midnight last time.

Why the fuck would we spend a trillion dollars building more effective doomsday weapons that we will probably (read: hopefully) never use?? I mean, I'm no expert, but a missile is a missile is a missile, right? If the ones we currently have carry a nuclear payload and can hit the target, why in the fuck would we drop a shit ton of money making better ones when we could use that money repairing our shitty infrastructure or investing in our economy? Maybe I'm missing something, but to me, this whole thing seems like a fucking waste. Our government has no sense of priority.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;51129874]Why the fuck would we spend a trillion dollars building more effective doomsday weapons that we will probably (read: hopefully) never use?? I mean, I'm no expert, but a missile is a missile is a missile, right? If the ones we currently have carry a nuclear payload and can hit the target, why in the fuck would we drop a shit ton of money making better ones when we could use that money repairing our shitty infrastructure or investing in our economy? Maybe I'm missing something, but to me, this whole thing seems like a fucking waste. Our government has no sense of priority.[/QUOTE] Nuclear missiles tend not to be nuclear for very long, because the isotopes decay to below the required yield for detonation. Plus, the radiation tends to destroy the circuits as well.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;51129874]Why the fuck would we spend a trillion dollars building more effective doomsday weapons that we will probably (read: hopefully) never use?? I mean, I'm no expert, but a missile is a missile is a missile, right? If the ones we currently have carry a nuclear payload and can hit the target, why in the fuck would we drop a shit ton of money making better ones when we could use that money repairing our shitty infrastructure or investing in our economy? Maybe I'm missing something, but to me, this whole thing seems like a fucking waste. Our government has no sense of priority.[/QUOTE] Because the hardware and software we currently use was developed in the '70s and '80s, and is starting to show its age. Lifespan-extension projects will only go so far. We kinda need new shit to counterbalance the new shit Russia and China are developing. That being said, I understand the cost concerns. Nuclear weapons are crazy expensive.

If we fail to arm ourselves, we will fail to put forth the best deterrent for an offensive war that the world has had; MAD. While no one likes the threat a cold war poses, or the threat of global nuclear warfare, even fewer people like the idea of [I]one side having the upper hand,[/I] thereby reducing the problem to "merely" local nuclear annihilation for one side.

China now has supersonic nuclear missiles and people are getting mad about us updating our arsenal?

[QUOTE=archangel125;51129860]Well, I can't say I disagree with that sentiment. The Russians have begun upgrading their nuclear arsenal yet again apparently in response to America continuing to develop anti-ICBM defensive technology and distribute it throughout Europe, in violation of an agreement with Russia. We really don't need another full-blown cold war right now, especially with how close the clock came to midnight last time.[/QUOTE] The US withdrew from the agreement in 2002, as was its right to do so. It's also niave to think Russia is only upgrading their missiles because of US AMB development. [editline]30th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;51129874]Why the fuck would we spend a trillion dollars building more effective doomsday weapons that we will probably (read: hopefully) never use?? I mean, I'm no expert, but a missile is a missile is a missile, right? If the ones we currently have carry a nuclear payload and can hit the target, why in the fuck would we drop a shit ton of money making better ones when we could use that money repairing our shitty infrastructure or investing in our economy? Maybe I'm missing something, but to me, this whole thing seems like a fucking waste. Our government has no sense of priority.[/QUOTE] Because the last Minuteman missile was constructed 40 years ago. The missiles have far exceeded their design life. Significant improvements to weapon accuracy and survivability can be made, both of which are required for nuclear parity. The US is also running out of them. They pull several missiles per year from the stockpile to test for function. [editline]30th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=James xX;51129882]Nuclear missiles tend not to be nuclear for very long, because the isotopes decay to below the required yield for detonation. Plus, the radiation tends to destroy the circuits as well.[/QUOTE] Everything you said there is wrong. [editline]30th September 2016[/editline] Clinton's position on a new nuclear cruise missile is foolish given ghe US has chosen to keep fielding the B52 as their primary nuclear bomber. Pretty much everything in the arsenal needs replacement. [editline]30th September 2016[/editline] It should be noted this will create jobs that can't be exported.