Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bananas

(27,509 posts)
Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:31 AM Feb 2013

Obama administration embraces major new cut in nuclear weapons

Source: Miami Herald

Senior Obama administration officials have agreed that the number of nuclear warheads the U.S. military deploys could be cut by at least a third without harming national security, according to those involved in the deliberations.

Such a reduction would open the door to billions of dollars in military savings, which might ease the federal budget deficit. It also would improve prospects for a new arms deal with Russia before President Barack Obama leaves office, those involved said, but it’s likely to draw fire from conservatives, if previous debate on the issue is any guide.

The results of the internal review haven’t been announced, but they’re reflected in a proposed classified directive prepared for Obama’s signature that details how U.S. nuclear weapons should be targeted against potential foes, according to four people with direct knowledge of the document’s content. The sources, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to talk to a reporter about the review, described the president as fully on board, but said he hasn’t signed the document.

The document directs the first detailed Pentagon revisions in U.S. targeting since 2009, when the military’s nuclear war planners last took account for the substantial shrinkage – roughly by half from 2000 to 2008 – in the number of nuclear weapons in the American arsenal. It makes clear that an even smaller nuclear force can still meet all defense requirements.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/08/v-fullstory/3222265/obama-administration-embraces.html

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Kolesar

(31,182 posts)
2. Park those useless submarines
Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:58 AM
Feb 2013
...they’re “poorly suited to address the challenges posed by suicidal terrorists and unfriendly regimes seeking nuclear weapons.”


Ivan isn't going to send a wave of ICBMs at us, either.

SQUEE

(1,315 posts)
5. I am more in favor of sealing up silos than removing our SSBN deterrent
Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:35 AM
Feb 2013

MAD appears to have worked through the Cold War, and the fact that we have a fundamentally untraceable and unreachable deterrent somewhere out there is more of a protection than hardened but reachable nukes. The fact that a can of sunshine is possibly 30 minutes from your capital will keep "sane" belligerents from glassing a US city or American base.
As for other actors? We need to develop a practical and effective ABM system, and once that umbrella is in place, then we consider mothballing our nuclear deterrent.

Kolesar

(31,182 posts)
6. I would like to maximize savings
Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:10 PM
Feb 2013

Subs and bombers have more personnel costs.
Thanks for your response.

Sirveri

(4,517 posts)
10. Wouldn't matter, they'd convert the SSBN's to SSGN's.
Sat Feb 9, 2013, 08:31 AM
Feb 2013

Dump the silos and the Bomber delivered strat nukes.

If you take the nukes off the SSBN's they'll still keep the boats, and just turn them into joint seal delivery and cruise missile launch platforms.

okaawhatever

(9,462 posts)
3. That's why Bob Corker R-TN is going after Hagel. He asked him about nukes during the hearings.
Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:11 AM
Feb 2013

I think he's concerned about losing funding for Oak Ridge, TN Y-12 facility.

 

kooljerk666

(776 posts)
4. We need 0 (zero) nuclear weapons. (period)
Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:20 AM
Feb 2013

Last edited Fri Feb 8, 2013, 05:49 PM - Edit history (1)

Bananas, you and I & L0oniX were tha only ones who Posted way back in October 2012.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=67223


Look people, if India & Pakistan nuke each other, odds are it would be worse than the Permian extinction.

If you have kids or care about life on earth (I care about all, but humans are in last place) than you ought to be campaigning against nukes. (i worry who will take care of the dogs & puppies?)

I would rather have all the molecules in my body blown to atoms than live through a nuke war & die slowly from starvation & radiation.

You know last summer they discovered a warp drive that could get 4.3 light years in two weeks. I have finally decided the human race has no place screwing up the galaxy as bad as we are doing here at home.

Not that my opinion matters...................

warp drive soon? http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-build-its-very-first-warp-drive
or extinction, which comes first?

underpants

(182,826 posts)
7. "likely to draw fire from conservatives" - like if he supports Mother's Day
Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:50 PM
Feb 2013

RW radio was telling the dashboard believers today about this in outrage...and then complaining about not cutting spending

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Obama administration embr...