Nuclear weapons enthusiast and subcommittee chair on “strategic arms” Rep. Mike Turner (R – OH), has warned the new Republican dominated House that in their hopes of getting the budget deficit under control they had better not touch President Obama’s calls for dramatic increases in nuclear weapons spending.
“The only debate should be whether there is adequate funding,” insisted Turner, who had previously lambasted the Obama Administration for issuing a new nuclear weapons policy statement that only explicitly threatened to pre-emptively nuke Iran for “weakening the strength of our deterrent.”
Turner now appears quite enthusiastic in his support for President Obama’s wholesale increases in war spending, particularly his “modernization” scheme for America’s weapons of mass destruction.
Turner’s position will no doubt complicate already dicey efforts to curb the record military spending, and points to the real reason that each new military budget is even bigger than the last – everyone is an armchair hobbyist for some sort of devestating form of mass murder, and each has its own built-in support network.
If the Republican Congress truly wanted to get its financial House in order, the massive spending on nuclear weapons, surely the most superfluous spending conceivable, would be one of the first things on the chopping block. But its rhetorical value, and the civilization-destroying program’s long list of enthusiastic fanboys, ensures that this will never happen.
Why does the USA need to wage war? There has not been a decade since the end of the second World War that America has not involved itself in other nations business. They appear to be addicted to using military might in many of the wrong places. As occupiers of Iraq and Afghanistan, they (and Israel in Palestine) wish to control other peoples destiny in a way that is quite stupid. This approach is so inconsistent with the Christian teachings that most Americans buy into that it is incomprehensible. They should stop singing "and the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air" and put some words in their national anthem that emulates peacefulness.
Nobel "peace" prize appointee racing towards Armageddon. Will Mr. Bin Laden be the next recipient of that "peace" pice?
i hope he get cancer and dies slowly.
.
I respectfully challenge the assertion that "nuclear weapons [are] surely the most superfluous spending conceivable."
There may arise some actual use for these weapons in the future. For example, an airburst may be found to reduce greenhouse gasses from trapping too much heat, or something else we cannot today imagine.
No, it is more superfluous to spend far less on missile defense. I think our nuclear weapons programs cost about $40 Billion a year, and "Star Wars" has cost less than $10 Billion a year so far.
But there is no conceivable use to which we can ever put our strategic missile shield. It will never work as advertised. All it will ever be able to do is to shoot down targets in staged exercises where the target incoming missiles are specially equipped to draw the interceptors. Of course, the interceptors cannot do that today, or even in five years, but a decade from now, I expect to see at least one staged "successful" test.
.