• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

52 Billion Bucks in one year - Up in Smoke ?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    52 Billion Bucks in one year - Up in Smoke ?

    I found this report fascinating - how can the UK government now possibly justify Blairs Trident upgrade - we dont even know how much this will cost UK Taxapyers - at a time when the country is basically broke ?


    Three retired senior military officers in the UK recently penned an op-ed in the London Times opposing their government’s move to upgrade its Trident nuclear weapons program, stating that the country’s nuclear deterrent was “virtually irrelevant.”


    “Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently, or are likely to, face — particularly international terrorism,” they wrote.




    A new study revealed that the United States spent more than $52 billion last year on nuclear weapons and related programs.


    The study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said that U.S. nuclear weapons spending — excluding classified programs — makes up 10 percent of the total defense budget, consumes 67 percent of the Department of Energy’s budget, and exceeds the total amount spent on international diplomacy and foreign aid, which is $39.5 billion. It also exceeds spending on technology, general science and space, which is $27.4 billion.

    The report concluded that only 1.3 percent of the total amount was directed toward preparing for a nuclear or radiological attack, while 56 percent is devoted to maintaining and upgrading the current U.S. nuclear arsenal. $5 billion was used for nonproliferation, elimination, prevention and securing efforts.

    The allocation of resources and lack of accurate accounting leaves the “impression that the United States is more interested in preserving and upgrading its nuclear arsenal than in reducing and eliminating the growing threats of nuclear proliferation and limited nuclear or radiological attack,” according to a study summary.

    Advocacy groups like Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) are distressed by the study’s findings.

    “Nuclear weapons pose the most serious threat to human life,” Cherie Eichholz, executive director of Washington PSR, wrote in an e-mail. “The numbers are highly disturbing, as is the fact that less than 10 percent of the $52 billion went toward slowing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and technology.”

    While national groups like PSR have been working toward disarmament for years, nuclear weapons and deterrence policies have recently come under scrutiny from high-level planners.

    Three retired senior military officers in the UK recently penned an op-ed in the London Times opposing their government’s move to upgrade its Trident nuclear weapons program, stating that the country’s nuclear deterrent was “virtually irrelevant.”

    “Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently, or are likely to, face — particularly international terrorism,” they wrote.

    Complete nuclear disarmament, an idea previously dismissed as “radical,” has recently gained support in the mainstream from establishment journals like Foreign Affairs and the Economist to former high-level Cold War planners such as Robert McNamara, George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry and Sam Nunn.

    “Current U.S. security policies do not reflect underlying public opinion,” said John Steinburner of the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland.

    Large percentages of the world’s population, ranging from 62 to 93 percent across the 20 countries surveyed, favor “eliminating all nuclear weapons,” including 77 percent in the United States and 69 percent in Russia, according to a poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.
    Last edited by AlfredJPruffock; 4 February 2009, 09:35.

    #2
    I don’t see why it would need upgrading. If you’ve got a nuke you can lay waste to any country you choose, so why would you need a newer, flashier Nuke GTi?
    And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
      I don’t see why it would need upgrading. If you’ve got a nuke you can lay waste to any country you choose, so why would you need a newer, flashier Nuke GTi?

      Aye Mick

      I have been contesting this very issue ever since Blair signed us up to it.

      My take is that using the 'qui bonum' principle - the only benefactors are the US millitary industrial complex who get the construction contracts - UK doesnt even get an independent key to fire the waepons either - so as its under US control why not let the Yanks pay for it - given they are spending 52 Billion a year on these WMDs anway.

      Madness.

      Id love to see them try to defend this upgrade now.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by AlfredJPruffock View Post
        Id love to see them try to defend this upgrade now.
        And when Iran test their first inter-continental nuke?
        Bored.

        Comment


          #5
          why do they need to upgrade nukes
          Do they have older version of windows ?

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by ace00 View Post
            And when Iran test their first inter-continental nuke?
            It'll be their first. Britain has about 50, and the US is thought to have over 10,000 nuclear weapons.
            And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Andy2 View Post
              why do they need to upgrade nukes
              Do they have older version of windows ?
              Safety.

              Anyway, it will give us 30 years of 'protection', the Olympics will give us 3 weeks of sport for 12 billion.

              I know what is more important.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by ace00 View Post
                And when Iran test their first inter-continental nuke?
                Blair has agreed to lease out Basingstoke for Irans ICBM testing in 2012 ,

                Sorted.

                Seriously - is that the best you can come up with ?
                Last edited by AlfredJPruffock; 4 February 2009, 09:56.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by AlfredJPruffock View Post
                  Blair has agreed to lease out Basingstoke for Irans ICBM testing in 2012 ,

                  Sorted.

                  Serioulsy - is that the best you can come up with ?
                  Why not Slough?

                  Come friendly bombs etc...
                  And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by minestrone View Post
                    I know what is more important.
                    Yes, bring back Concorde for an Olympic fly-past.
                    And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X