senate Bill S. Res. 633
Do Plans for Modernizing the Nuclear Arsenal Need to be Changed?
Argument in favor
The cost of updating the cruise missile and a new intercontinental ballistic missile is too much, and that spending should be focused instead on other defense programs.
12/19/2016
We're dangerously close to hitting the $20 trillion mark of debt in this country, while military spending is the second highest of any budget allocation. Reevaluating how we spend this money can help curb our debt problem and prioritize the needs of Americans before power politics.
12/19/2016
The nuclear weapons we have now are more than capable of inflicting enough harm on an enemy, and in turn, causing them to retaliate with severe damage to our country. One nuclear weapon is one too many.
12/19/2016
The idea that many countries around the world including ours have nuclear weapons is terrifying. And the thought that there aren't very many rules and regulations keeping these nations from nuking each other is even more so. There needs to be more regulations.
Argument opposed
America’s nuclear arsenal is aging, and at some point the missile technology will need to be updated. Besides, all this is does is ask the president to look at the programs.
···
12/18/2016
I agree with Countable member "UnapologeticallyAmerican", who said:
"The U.S. can deter a nuclear attack in three ways. By land with intercontinental ballistic missiles, by air with nuclear weapons on bombers and fighter jets, and by sea with nuclear missiles roaming the oceans on submarines. These methods are more commonly known as the nuclear triad. The U.S. nuclear modernization program is 20 years behind the Chinese and Russian modernization programs. If we’re going to maintain a safe, secure, and effective force, we’re going to need to do something to replace the existing delivery systems and extend the life of the nuclear weapons that we have."
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not at all comfortable with the government letting us get behind the Russians, Chinese, or any other country in nuclear modernization. It makes me feel less secure! Especially considering the possibility of North Korea and Iran allying with Russia and China! That's why I also agree with Countable member Michael's reason for voting NAY:
"It's obvious some live in a bubble and think everyone thinks like us [and shares our values]. They don't. China & Russia aren't spending billions on building their military and updating their nuclear weapons for no reason. We must keep in lockstep with them to insure security. You don't stop a schoolyard bully by showing weakness. The world is still a barbaric place, and not everyone wants to hold hands and sing kumbaya."
The reason Russia and/or China haven't already attacked us with nukes is because they understand the principle of MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION! But if they thought they could knock out our nuclear capability before we could retaliate, I believe they would have done so by now - or might very well do so in the future. For the federal government to drag their feet and let our enemies get ahead of us weakens the effectiveness of MAD and leaves the United States INEXCUSABLY VULNERABLE!
WE MUST ALSO HAVE A FIRST-CLASS SYSTEM IN PLACE FOR PROTECTING THE U.S. FROM AN EMP ATTACK! I'M HOPING THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT DOWNPLAYING OR IGNORING THE LIKELY DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH AN ATTACK!
12/18/2016
The U.S. can deter a nuclear attack in three ways. By land with intercontinental ballistic missiles, by air with nuclear weapons on bombers and fighter jets, and by sea with nuclear missiles roaming the oceans on submarines. These methods are more commonly known as the nuclear triad. The U.S. nuclear modernization program is 20 years behind the Chinese and Russian modernization programs. If we’re going to maintain a safe, secure, and effective force, we’re going to need to do something to replace the existing delivery systems and extend the life of the nuclear weapons that we have.
12/18/2016
While this request that the president reevaluate the plan to modernize U.S. nuclear weapons may seem promising, the proposed by the Depts. of Defense (DOD) and Energy (DOE) came under the weak-kneed Obama Administration. So let's allow the Trump Administration under the leadership of Gen. James Mattis. But let's not forget that all branches our military also require modernization with a focus on the Air Force and Navy with increases in the Army's troop levels. Even a bully would cower to a bigger stick.
We're dangerously close to hitting the $20 trillion mark of debt in this country, while military spending is the second highest of any budget allocation. Reevaluating how we spend this money can help curb our debt problem and prioritize the needs of Americans before power politics.
I agree with Countable member "UnapologeticallyAmerican", who said:
"The U.S. can deter a nuclear attack in three ways. By land with intercontinental ballistic missiles, by air with nuclear weapons on bombers and fighter jets, and by sea with nuclear missiles roaming the oceans on submarines. These methods are more commonly known as the nuclear triad. The U.S. nuclear modernization program is 20 years behind the Chinese and Russian modernization programs. If we’re going to maintain a safe, secure, and effective force, we’re going to need to do something to replace the existing delivery systems and extend the life of the nuclear weapons that we have."
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not at all comfortable with the government letting us get behind the Russians, Chinese, or any other country in nuclear modernization. It makes me feel less secure! Especially considering the possibility of North Korea and Iran allying with Russia and China! That's why I also agree with Countable member Michael's reason for voting NAY:
"It's obvious some live in a bubble and think everyone thinks like us [and shares our values]. They don't. China & Russia aren't spending billions on building their military and updating their nuclear weapons for no reason. We must keep in lockstep with them to insure security. You don't stop a schoolyard bully by showing weakness. The world is still a barbaric place, and not everyone wants to hold hands and sing kumbaya."
The reason Russia and/or China haven't already attacked us with nukes is because they understand the principle of MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION! But if they thought they could knock out our nuclear capability before we could retaliate, I believe they would have done so by now - or might very well do so in the future. For the federal government to drag their feet and let our enemies get ahead of us weakens the effectiveness of MAD and leaves the United States INEXCUSABLY VULNERABLE!
WE MUST ALSO HAVE A FIRST-CLASS SYSTEM IN PLACE FOR PROTECTING THE U.S. FROM AN EMP ATTACK! I'M HOPING THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT DOWNPLAYING OR IGNORING THE LIKELY DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH AN ATTACK!
The U.S. can deter a nuclear attack in three ways. By land with intercontinental ballistic missiles, by air with nuclear weapons on bombers and fighter jets, and by sea with nuclear missiles roaming the oceans on submarines. These methods are more commonly known as the nuclear triad. The U.S. nuclear modernization program is 20 years behind the Chinese and Russian modernization programs. If we’re going to maintain a safe, secure, and effective force, we’re going to need to do something to replace the existing delivery systems and extend the life of the nuclear weapons that we have.
While this request that the president reevaluate the plan to modernize U.S. nuclear weapons may seem promising, the proposed by the Depts. of Defense (DOD) and Energy (DOE) came under the weak-kneed Obama Administration. So let's allow the Trump Administration under the leadership of Gen. James Mattis. But let's not forget that all branches our military also require modernization with a focus on the Air Force and Navy with increases in the Army's troop levels. Even a bully would cower to a bigger stick.
The idea that many countries around the world including ours have nuclear weapons is terrifying. And the thought that there aren't very many rules and regulations keeping these nations from nuking each other is even more so. There needs to be more regulations.
The nuclear weapons we have now are more than capable of inflicting enough harm on an enemy, and in turn, causing them to retaliate with severe damage to our country. One nuclear weapon is one too many.
What many in this country don't realize is that we don't need thousands of weapons in our nuclear arsenal. Any nuclear war to occur today would spark a nuclear winter, destroying much of humanity. I call for a drastic reduction in our nuclear program to a total of twelve high tech, advanced, and up to date weapons. Four on land, for in submarines, and four where we need them around the world for deployment by aircraft. To destroy the entire population of any country, even the world population, 12 high tech weapons are much better than thousands of outdated, incapable ones that endanger the safety of the american public.
Our ICBM's were built before JFK was assassinated. This a testament to the strength and fortitude with which these facilities were built. That being said maintenance on these systems becomes increasingly difficult because many pieces of equipment are no longer manufactured. Plans to update the nuclear arsenal are underway and should be continued as planned. We could have a new system as early as 2030. However any more delays will push this date back and force the Air Force to make due with less and less. To address concerns about an arms race, there are 450 ICBM sites on the CONUS so we're already past the point of having "too many". In addition to that we don't decommission anything unless Russia does too, you don't decommission yours hoping another country will follow suit just like you don't lower your weapon in a standoff hoping the assailant will do the same. As far as cost effectiveness goes the Nuclear Enterprise takes up about 1% of the DoD's budget so we already get a bigger bang for our buck. Obviously updating a system will require contractors and a lot of money but consider this. Iran has stated that they will eat grass in order to finance their own nuclear weapon system. If that is how hell bent other countries are to finance a nuclear weapons system then we must also be willing to write a big check at some point. To the individual who said we should make houses out of these sites for the homless I hope you are trolling this argument because the majority of these sites are in the middle of nowhere North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming. So unless you plan on purchasing 4 wheel drive trucks for all these people that isn't even an option because they would literally die walking to the grocery store. Let the program currently underway run it's course because we can't afford anymore delays.
Dismantle them and use them to build tiny homes for homeless.
It's obvious some live in a bubble and think everyone thinks like us. They don't. China & Russia aren't spending billions on building their military and updating their nuclear weapons for no reason. We must keep in lockstep with them to insure security. You don't stop a schoolyard bully by showing weakness. The world is still a barbaric place, and not everyone wants to hold hands and sing kumbaya.
I vote "Yea" in the hopes that this will spark an end to needless spending on our over bloated military.
Our containment of nukes relies on a 70's era computer system that ensures it cannot be hacked from an outside entity and thus being the reason it has not been modified.
I would like to see more efforts toward disarming and more resources provided to education. Out military spending is insane I my opinion.
We need modernization, reconditioning, refurbishment, and replacement of our Strategic and Non-strategic Weapons Arsenal. We also need new Research and Development, Testing and Engineering Programs to include advanced improved warhead safety and delivery systems. Our storage and launch architecture is outdated and sorely in need of improved launch readiness and targeting-detection Technologies. We need DOE and DOD to prioritize and collaborate on immediate improvements, certification, and modernization objectives. Our Deterrent Strength and capability is at-risk.
I also agree with Countable member "UnapologeticallyAmerican", who said:
"The U.S. can deter a nuclear attack in three ways. By land with intercontinental ballistic missiles, by air with nuclear weapons on bombers and fighter jets, and by sea with nuclear missiles roaming the oceans on submarines. These methods are more commonly known as the nuclear triad. The U.S. nuclear modernization program is 20 years behind the Chinese and Russian modernization programs. If we’re going to maintain a safe, secure, and effective force, we’re going to need to do something to replace the existing delivery systems and extend the life of the nuclear weapons that we have."
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not at all comfortable with the government letting us get behind the Russians, Chinese, or any other country in nuclear modernization. It makes me feel less secure! Especially considering the possibility of North Korea and Iran allying with Russia and China! That's why I also agree with Countable member Michael's reason for voting NAY:
"It's obvious some live in a bubble and think everyone thinks like us [and shares our values]. They don't. China & Russia aren't spending billions on building their military and updating their nuclear weapons for no reason. We must keep in lockstep with them to insure security. You don't stop a schoolyard bully by showing weakness. The world is still a barbaric place, and not everyone wants to hold hands and sing kumbaya."
The reason Russia and/or China haven't already attacked us with nukes is because they understand the principle of MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION! But if they thought they could knock out our nuclear capability before we could retaliate, I believe they would have done so by now - or might very well do so in the future. For the federal government to drag their feet and let our enemies get ahead of us weakens the assurance of MAD and leaves the United States INEXCUSABLY VULNERABLE!
WE MUST ALSO HAVE A FIRST-CLASS SYSTEM IN PLACE FOR PROTECTING THE U.S. FROM AN EMP ATTACK! I'M HOPING THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT DOWNPLAYING OR IGNORING THE LIKELY DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH AN ATTACK! Along with that we need to build up our military which is going to be down by president Donald John Trump.
Dismantle the majority and use the material to create smaller, safer nuclear power plants to provide free energy for all Americans and our neighbors. Convince other world powers to do the same through our example.
Could be an unclear sign to the world. People could think we are intend nuclear war
This is a good idea. Blindly following the decades old policy of a "triad" approach (ground based missles, submarine and ship based missles, and bomber based missles) should rethought in today's realities.