This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
(2) There is no possible use for them in the modern age
(3) No one wants to be charge of stuff that will never ever be used
(4) It is really expensive to maintain stuff no will use.
(5) This stuff is very dangerous and something could go wrong.
Ok that about sums it up. I say get rid of the all the weapons, the military will not care, we will free up god people, save money that could be used for other weapons and it will be safer. It is kind of insane to think we are spending so much money on something we cannot use because there is no possible use for it.
I agree with the points the article outlines. But it's not that simple.
If we got rid of the weapons there is no guarantee that the cost savings would go to the military or the taxpayers. More than likely other social boondoggles would grab the dough.
There is also the problem of convincing Russia, China, France, England, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran to give up their nukes. It's that old problem of trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle.
The point that it is really expensive to maintain and will not be used is also an argument about insurance or firearms. I hope you don't need it, but if you do you'll need it more than you've ever needed anything else in your life.
"If we got rid of the weapons there is no guarantee that the cost savings would go to the military or the taxpayers. More than likely other social boondoggles would grab the dough."
Weak argument, at least some social boondoggles are good. We could use it to rebuild Baltimore or help the homeless in California.
"There is also the problem of convincing Russia, China, France, England, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran to give up their nukes. It's that old problem of trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle."
I think this is the real issue. The moment we give up nukes, China will start mass producing them and test. Not to mention Europe would go back to conventional warfare. If the US gets rid of its arsenal you will have WWIII in less then 10 years but with conventional weapons or Chinese and Russian nukes.
Yeah, Germany did that really well in the 1930's. Also Cambodia in the 1960's and 70's. History is just full of people "policing themselves." Then the grownups have to clean it up.
I was referring to the "grownups" who cleaned up Nazi Germany after Hitler got done "policing himself." Likewise the "grownups" who cleaned up Pol Pot and his friends after he got done "policing himself." None of those grownups are still there.
12 comments:
So basically.
(1) The military does care about NW.
(2) There is no possible use for them in the modern age
(3) No one wants to be charge of stuff that will never ever be used
(4) It is really expensive to maintain stuff no will use.
(5) This stuff is very dangerous and something could go wrong.
Ok that about sums it up. I say get rid of the all the weapons, the military will not care, we will free up god people, save money that could be used for other weapons and it will be safer. It is kind of insane to think we are spending so much money on something we cannot use because there is no possible use for it.
Rock solid article.
I agree with the points the article outlines. But it's not that simple.
If we got rid of the weapons there is no guarantee that the cost savings would go to the military or the taxpayers. More than likely other social boondoggles would grab the dough.
There is also the problem of convincing Russia, China, France, England, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran to give up their nukes. It's that old problem of trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle.
The point that it is really expensive to maintain and will not be used is also an argument about insurance or firearms. I hope you don't need it, but if you do you'll need it more than you've ever needed anything else in your life.
So the first threat of nuclear use by China, Russia, India, Pakistan, NK, etc., and the US folds to whatever they want? Really?
"If we got rid of the weapons there is no guarantee that the cost savings would go to the military or the taxpayers. More than likely other social boondoggles would grab the dough."
Weak argument, at least some social boondoggles are good. We could use it to rebuild Baltimore or help the homeless in California.
"There is also the problem of convincing Russia, China, France, England, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran to give up their nukes. It's that old problem of trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle."
I think this is the real issue. The moment we give up nukes, China will start mass producing them and test. Not to mention Europe would go back to conventional warfare. If the US gets rid of its arsenal you will have WWIII in less then 10 years but with conventional weapons or Chinese and Russian nukes.
9/25/2019 7:55 AM
Or Pakistani nukes, or NK nukes, or India nukes. No policeman, no check on the bad guys.
Maybe the world no longer likes the police. The people can police themselves!
Maybe the world no longer likes the police. The people can police themselves!
9/25/2019 7:34 PM
Baltimore baby! But with nukes! What could possibly go wrong.
I mean maybe a better solution would for Google or Microsoft to control the biggest arsenal.
The people can police themselves!
9/25/2019 7:34 PM
Yeah, Germany did that really well in the 1930's. Also Cambodia in the 1960's and 70's. History is just full of people "policing themselves." Then the grownups have to clean it up.
Then the grownups have to clean it up.
9/26/2019 4:58 PM
Actually, the "grownups" sent their sons and daughters to clean it up. Many are still there.
I was referring to the "grownups" who cleaned up Nazi Germany after Hitler got done "policing himself." Likewise the "grownups" who cleaned up Pol Pot and his friends after he got done "policing himself." None of those grownups are still there.
I think we can all agree that the amount of money spent on nuclear weapons is way more than is warranted. That is the real point of this report.
I think we can all agree that the amount of money spent on nuclear weapons is way more than is warranted.
10/05/2019 5:57 AM
Why in the world would you think that??
Post a Comment