Obama Seeks $80 Billion for New Nukes
Gates Says US Needs to 'Rebuild' Stockpile
Not long after the administration finalized an arms reduction treaty with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, President Obama is now seeking $80 billion in funding for nuclear weapons.
According to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the money would be spent to “rebuild and sustain America’s aging nuclear stockpile.”
The US has one of the two largest arsenals on the planet, some 5,113 warheads, a holdover from the Cold War arms race with the former Soviet Union.
Despite very public efforts to declare himself an advocate of total nuclear disarmament, President Obama has made no secret of his ambitions for an updated nuclear stockpile, ostensibly for “safety” reasons.
But in reality, an arsenal capable of wiping out much of the life on the planet is never really safe, and questions about the military’s handling of the arsenal are nothing new. Likewise it is difficult to argue, in a post Cold War world, that the US truly needs such an enormous arsenal merely for “deterrence.”
Yet for the administration selling the case for new nuclear weapons will likely have a relatively easy time of it, particularly with the illusion of Obama’s bona fides on disarmament looming large in the background.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
- Karzai Pulls Out of Afghan Peace Talks - June 19th, 2013
- In Drills, US and Jordan Prepare to Attack Syria - June 18th, 2013
- UN Chief Urges Easing of 1990 Iraq Sanctions - June 18th, 2013
- Four US Soldiers Killed in Attack on Afghan Base - June 18th, 2013
- DHS Wants Same Surveillance Powers as NSA - June 18th, 2013





E.A. Costa
May 14th, 2010 at 1:49 am
Abridge is not abridge, less is more, and disarmament is a whole slew of new nuclear weapons.
Logic is logic that's all I say.
MvGuy
May 14th, 2010 at 4:13 am
Say it ain't so…………..
omgnag
May 14th, 2010 at 4:58 am
I'd like a constitutional amendment, where we'd have the choice of voting for one of the candidates, or for "None". If "None" got more votes than any candidate, the parties would have to try to run some more acceptable to us. Yes I did vote for Obama, but only as the lessor of 2 evils. I'd have liked the choice of "None"
E.A. Costa
May 14th, 2010 at 5:38 am
That was exactly the old Soviet electoral procedure–one party, one candidate, and a yes or no vote.
That is still the Chinese procedure last time one looked.
The West has mocked this system interminably as rubber stamp but it was not rubberstamp at all.
The Communists took no votes very seriously–and some candidates would be replaced even if they had only a large number short of "no's" quite short of a majority.
Bene_Tleilax
May 14th, 2010 at 1:52 am
The day I realized was this assclown was going to be anointed emperor, or if Killary Klingon even – long before the primaries BTW – I said to my myself and anyone who would listen, "just watch: this scumbag is going to attack Pakistan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Congo, possibly Iran, and WILL start a Global Thermo-Nuclear War". With minor variations, he has been following the script to a tee.
Bush/Cheney in comparison were downright DOVES, inept as they were.
If I hear one more person describe this fool as "the lesser of two evils" I'm going to vomit. Other viable and far more worthy choices were available: Ron Paul, Nader, etc.
pwi
May 14th, 2010 at 10:14 am
Obama is not a peacenik? But gosh he won the nobel Peace Prize! Well its almost the summer and I will worry about Nukes next fall…oh but then it will be Football season. I will worry about nukes next year I promise.
epppie
May 14th, 2010 at 10:58 am
He isn't the lesser of two evils. Check history. Democrats in office get away with a lot worse behavior, because they face NO opposition. Watch as Obama takes the first successful shot at destroying Social Security, now that he's gotten away with attacking Medicare. If a Democrat can get away with attacking the ultimate sacred cows of their party, what can they NOT get away with?
A Dem faces no limits. That makes them far more dangerous than the worst Republican.
dedreckon
May 14th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
The "Lesser of two evils" is still evil isn't it?
Voters should think about that folly when voting in this next, "last chance for ther country" election.
dedreckon
May 14th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Doesn't sound much different then the way we conduct our elections, or the ones we rig in the foreign countries we have bombed into submission.
skulz fontaine
May 14th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Sign the 'treaty'- check. Get more cash for 'nukes'- check. Still in the Iraqnam- check. Yeah, "change" you can believe in.
Steve Hogan
May 14th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Let's spend billions we don't have building nukes we don't need to protect us against imaginary enemies. Good plan, Barack.
At the risk of stating the obvious, our president is a liar, murderer, and war criminal.
Claus Eric Hamle
May 14th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
The reason is that the Pentagon aims to achieve a disarming and unanswerable first-strike capability. On the new missiles to be deployed on ships in the Black Sea in Bulgaria and on land in Romania and Poland former Trident missile engineer Bob Aldridge-www.plrc.org-commented, "Whether on ships or land, they are still a necessary component for an unanswerable first strike".
Claus Eric Hamle
May 14th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
That´s the highest form of insanity: The Pentagon aims to achieve a disarming and unanswerable first-strike capability. Nuclear Winter doesn´t seem to matter. And the obvious answer of Launch On Warning doesn´t seem to matter. According to former Trident missile engineer Bob Aldridge-www.plrc.org-the US Navy can track and destroy all enemy submarines simultaneously and Minuteman-3 and Trident-2 D5 get an accuracy of 30 meters or less, enough to destroy any hard target. The bloody fools in the Pentagon actually force the other side to make a Launch On Warning-sorry! mistake.
The Dukes Of Hazards Crash Into Our Economic Cars « Culture of Life News
May 14th, 2010 at 8:02 am
[...] Obama Seeks $80 Billion for New Nukes — News from Antiwar.com According to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the money would be spent to “rebuild and sustain America’s aging nuclear stockpile.”….Despite very public efforts to declare himself an advocate of total nuclear disarmament, President Obama has made no secret of his ambitions for an updated nuclear stockpile, ostensibly for “safety” reasons. [...]
Druthers
May 14th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Obama should take his administration for a walk in the forest – perhaps the money is growing on trees.
The people are getting pale, what with the leeches and vampires sucking our blood and keeping it in off shore accounts for a rainy day.
Mărunţişuri « La conu' Mişu
May 14th, 2010 at 11:08 am
[...] 80 de miliarde de dolari pentru bombe nucleare noi. Păi, cum altfel? Doar nu “ieşi din criză” decît prin cheltuieli judicioase, mai ales cînd ai semnat un nou tratat de… bla, bla… reducere cu o lună în urmă. Mă mir că nu li se cere sclavilor din România şi de prin alte părţi să contribuie direct, că indirect o fac tot timpul. Doar avem umbrelă, ce mama naibii! [...]
* Obama Seeks $80 Billion for New Nukes « Count Us Out
May 14th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
[...] SOURCE [...]