United States' Nuclear Modernization Effort

Obama’s Russian Rationale for $1 Trillion Nuke Plan Signals New Arms Race: https://theintercept.com/2016/02/23/obamas-new-rationale-for-1-trillion-nuclear-program-augurs-a-new-arms-race-with-russia/

Should the United States actively try to modernize its nuclear arsenal? If so (or not), why?

I don't see the problem with modernizing them. I mean are these new nukes going to be packing a payload substantially superior to the ones we normally have? If the answer to that question is "no" then meh.

But wait on the other hand..I'd wonder if that money could be better spent on shit we actually need? We spend far too much money on the military or shit for the military. Meanwhile our health care is a steaming pile of shit.

Personally I would want to keep our Nuclear arsenal on the back self. Although some good can come from this. Like was mentioned in the article some of our technology regarding our Nuclear system is pretty outlandishly outdated. Upgrading those systems could be an improvement to helping make sure those resources are secure and not able to be accidentally used.

Still I wish these things could stop being so important.

It would make sense to drastically reduce it, yet modernize the ones you keep and keep them well maintained.

YouTube video

I'm not concerned with Russia, Putin's idiotic gambling will probably leave that country bankrupt and crumbling in 20 years. I'm concerned with China.

So far China has been satisfied to not have MAD with the USA, but rather to maintain just enough of a deterrent to make nuclear war undesirable, but I can see a scenario where US spending on nuclear modernization worries China enough that they feel like they need to play catch up.

Why spend ten times as much money as your opponent in an arms race?

You're in a 19 trillion dollar debt, your Gini index is at the level of a third world country and you want to invest one trillion dollars—money that you don't have—in nukes?

I sometimes think that for Putin the cold war never really ended.

Though yep, this is a lot of money when we need it for other things.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It would make sense to drastically reduce it, yet modernize the ones you keep and keep them well maintained.

YouTube video

😆

And here was me thinking the state of the UK'S trident fleet was unique.
https://wikileaks.org/trident-safety/

Russia's nuclear hunter of aircraft carriers to get hypersonic cruise missiles by 2022: https://www.rt.com/news/333441-zircon-hypersonic-cruise-missile/

If the Americans want to maintain the status-quo (i.e. superpower) in the years to come, then this investment is necessary.

You cannot remain a superpower without investing in the critical areas of national security from time to time.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
If the Americans want to maintain the status-quo (i.e. superpower) in the years to come, then this investment is necessary.

You cannot remain a superpower without investing in the critical areas of national security from time to time.

I agree with you, but the problem is we do not follow your "from time to time" stipulation. We're always putting shitloads of money into the military and various weapons.

Instead of spending a trillion dollars, why don't we just spend an incredibly low amount like $150 million and force our engineers to get creative.

If you're dropping a trillion dollars, you'd better be building a city on Mars. Anything else is overspending.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Instead of spending a trillion dollars, why don't we just spend an incredibly low amount like $150 million and force our engineers to get creative.

If you're dropping a trillion dollars, you'd better be building a city on Mars. Anything else is overspending.

We don't take kindly to logic round these here parts.