ANonymously contributed:
Global Security Newswire
Nuke Spending Boost Needed to Disarm, Biden Says
Friday, Feb. 19, 2010
U.S. nuclear-weapon laboratories require a dramatic funding boost to help maintain the reliability of the nation's nuclear deterrent as the Obama administration pursues further arsenal reductions and ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden said in a speech yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 18).
The administration plans to seek more than $5 billion in additional funding over five years for sustaining the U.S. nuclear complex and deterrent, starting with a $624 million increase in fiscal 2011. The $7 billion request submitted this month would increase nuclear weapon-related spending by 13.5 percent in the next budget cycle, according to the Associated Press.
Despite 10 years of budget reductions at the National Nuclear Security Administration, the semiautonomous Energy Department agency that oversees the U.S. nuclear stockpile, "our labs know more about our arsenal today than when they were able to explode weapons (in tests)," Biden said...
http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/
nw_20100219_9859.php
10 comments:
There must be some mistake. I am not concerned, the naysayers in the group will come up with some negative hot air I am sure. Ready...go!
By completing the new arms control pact and addressing issues related to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the United States can bolster its case against Iran's disputed nuclear activities, the vice president said (see related GSN story, today; Hurst, Associated Press).
Based on the latest report from the IAEA Board of Governor, our past & current activities have not deterred Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons capabilities. Nor did they deter N. Korea. As for Syria, Burma, et al – we’ll have to wait & see.
As for any benefits resulting from ratification of the CTBT – I don’t see any.
The CTBT does not matter in this regard. Neither does any pronouncement by the US or by the UN. Do you tink that Iran's announced level of enrichment (20%) is an accident? What is the IAEA's trigger level for nuclear weapon useability and extra required safeguards? Bingo! Israel will take care of this problem for us (and for them). Soon.
Israel will take care of Iran; someone else will take care of them!
There will be consequences!
The main thrust of this boost in NNSA funding is destined for: (a) construction projects, primarily at LANL (pit production) and Y-12 (enhanced uranium factory), and (b) for non-proliferation work with a strong emphasis on using the additional funding to retrieve and secure nuclear materials at overseas sites.
As far as science goes, little new funding will be seen. I would not take this boost in NNSA funding as a sure sign that there will be no future layoffs at the NNSA labs. The workforce "re-structuring" will likely continue.
Unlike the US, Israel weighs potential consequences carefully before taking action. Also unlike the US, Israel's security issues are existential ones.
Israel will take care of this problem for us (and for them). Soon.
Israel said they'll use tactical nukes to take care of the problem if the U.S. doesn't get them under control soon. That was on the news a few days ago. Can't say I blame them and must say they have more balls then the U.S. of A. The peace loving dream weavers that reside here are to stupid to make such promises and or to carry them out in fear of world opinion and politics. IMHO I could care less about world opinion. Do the job right and they'll be no one left to complain or make a case against such necessary actions. Party over! Believe me, your enemies would have no problem taking us out in the same manner if given the opportunity.
"The peace loving dream weavers"..really?
That would make you a "war loving hate monger" I suppose. You have no interest in peace, right? Peace is for sissy's, real men want war.
Ooops....I thought we let most of the weapons people go at LLNL. I am wrong about this? Otherwise, this is great for LANL and Oakridge.
Peace is for sissy's, real men want war.
February 22, 2010 7:10 AM
Actually, I think the poster's comment was about the correct response to an existential threat to a country. I guess "peace" wouldn't result in the appropriate outcome in that case.
Post a Comment