https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/03/22/fight-over-americas-nuclear-arsenal-heats-up-in-congress/
This has the potential to drastically change the NNSA and the weapons laboratories. What do those who contribute to this blog think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days
-
LGBT intolerance problem at Sandia? I was just checking glassdoor.com and noticed several comments suggesting intolerance to LGBT at Sandia...
-
So did you SSVSP and why? Give details.
-
“Raise a concern, get blackballed then lose your job and benefits…” “…instead of raising your concerns just leverage on your skills and go t...
14 comments:
The biggest threat right now is the environment and global warming. I think readable minds can agree that we could cut our seeping by 2/3 to 3/4 and we would still have all the credible deterrence we need. The rest of the money could go toward a Green New deal. Russian and China will pollute themselves out of existence while if we go Green we will come out on top.
You have to also remember that this fight just changed with the Mueller report now out. If you read it it, it is beyond clear that Trump colluded, conspired, obstructed and so on and so impeachment will soon follow. Pence may be in for year of so but that is it. I think you need to seriously start thinking what policies Bernie Sanders will have on nukes. You better hope that Biden gets in, but it is clear no now that Trump will be gone sooner or later.
4/18/2019 9:26 PM
An ultra-liberal post. No actual realistic response to the OP. If a LLNL-based blog cannot support pro-nuclear deterrent views, where will they be heard? This is really sad to anyone who put in decades of service in securing our nuclear stockpile.
If you think that the US alone can "come out on top" in "global warming" if China and India (not Russia, which is a 19th century state) don't change their economies and energy structures, you need to do some more research. All of US CO2 emissions account for about 15% of the world's emissions. Reducing US emissions to zero will do exactly nothing to global warming.
We could also just print money and put it in a shredder and be as effective as the green new deal.
Yes the United States and Europe should bear the brunt of the reducing CO2 emissions. For the last 150 years these countries have polluted the earth and reaped unearned rewards for this. Now some countries have only started to become strongly industrialized in the last 30 years, it is simply unfair to ask them to cut back at the same rate as the United States and would put them at a disadvantage.
"We could also just print money and put it in a shredder and be as effective as the green new deal."
There are many scientists who back the plan but I guess you know better.
4/20/2019 11:02 PM
You should consider your comments more carefully as you effectively just told folks that fossil fuel driven climate change does not matter and that all you are actually interested in is punishment. There are ~12 times as many people in Asia as there are in the entirety of North America. Countries in Asia are building coal plants and other fossil fuel plants as rapidly as they can. Emissions from those plants will easily outstrip all emissions from North America by a large amount. In such a case, as 4/20/2019 5:24 PM pointed out, the U.S. could go to zero emissions and it literally would not matter in the scheme of things.
I understand that there seem to be a lot of people who believe intentions, and not results, are all that matter but, if you care about fossil fuel driven climate change, Asia is the big knob for solving that problem. If you don't effect change there soon, and if fossil fuel driven climate change is as big a problem as is claimed, what North America does in regards to fossil fuels will hardly matter.
4/21/2019 11:56 AM
I think what you are saying is that because Asia is so big we should do nothing because it does not matter anyway. First of all
we are obliged to do something regardless if Asia does so or not. If we start the GND or something like it, it could tell Asia that we are not in competition and they could start their own programs.
There is a sense of punishment as well. The West has polluted the world for some time and subjugates countries that do not, who can blame the rest of the world for trying to protect themselves by becoming industrialized. The West is going to have give something up for a change if the other parts of the world are going to trust them. In the end they created this mess, they should have more burden in cleaning it up.
4/21/2019 10:22 PM
Liberal agenda-driven politics, with not a whit of science involved. A refusal to see or understand facts, as only intentions matter. Punishment for past behavior is required regardless of intended outcome.
"I think what you are saying is that because Asia is so big we should do nothing because it does not matter anyway." Hey! You are starting to understand that facts matter! Yay!
There are many scientists who back the plan but I guess you know better.
————————————————-
This is “feel good” political gestures. No scientist believes this “deal” will change the outcome. More so, the deal is just a transfer of power from the people to the political class. I do not have this guilt you are looking to manipulate.
"There are ~12 times as many people in Asia as there are in the entirety of North America. Countries in Asia are building coal plants and other fossil fuel plants as rapidly as they can."
To combat global warming we need a global change. The idea of country, group, race, religion or whatever may need to be put aside, at least to some extent to actually have a true global response, else we everyone will pay. The green new deal is a good idea but as some poster have pointed out that the US alone will not be enough, we need everyone, every country. The labs can play a role in changing things, there is so much we can all do, so let us do it.
"The idea of country, group, race, religion or whatever may need to be put aside, at least to some extent to actually have a true global response, else we everyone will pay."
In the first quote, you admit there is nothing that can practicably be done, since no one except American liberals will agree to "put aside" such things, which define their countries and their cultures.
"The labs can play a role in changing things, there is so much we can all do, so let us do it."
In the second quote, you pretend there is something that can be done.
This is such crazy liberal drivel it cannot be logically responded to, since no logic is involved in formulating it.
GND is fool's play compared with a well-engineered energy economy based on thorium-cycle reactors.
4/27/2019 12:53 PM
I agree completely as would any thinking person. But good luck with that with the greenies who hate nuclear more than they hate carbon. Completely irrational.
Let's review the comments:
Don't spend the money on Nukes, save the environment.
Trump vs Mueller
CO2
And one post about the ORIGINAL post that points out none of the other posts are discussing the issue of nuclear deterrence.
You know, things like do we need a triad, do the weapons in the stockpile actually work (I know, the directors sign a letter saying they do) and can use use the weapons in the stockpile on today's delivery systems.
We are 27 years away from the last test. All of the original designers are gone and I don't have a warm fuzzy feeling about what's on the shelf. Rather than discuss such issues we immediately delve into the Green Deal. Let's not forget the electoral college in this discussion either.
I don't know if the good old days were really that good but at least we could keep our focus on the subject at hand.
Post a Comment