Bush out spends Reagan on nukes

[plazul]

According to Slate Magazine, the Bush Administration is spending far more (adjusted for inflation) on nuclear weapons than Reagan did during the height of the Cold War. While Bush issues dire warnings about nuclear proliferation and dangerous rogue nations America is busy modernizing its nuclear stockpile with bunker busting bombs and other advanced nuclear weapons. There is no evidence that existing nuclear weapons are deteriorating but DoD say some of the delivery systems for such weapons are becoming obsolete. Compared to what?

Meanwhile, China's nuclear program, run by American educated scientists, continues to grow by leaps and bounds prompting more investment than ever before by America's defense establishment in ABM technology.

In short, America's spending on this new arms race will make cold war defense budgets look frugal.

[Serenity]

america's spending and advancement of nuclear technology concerns me...china's spending and advancement fuggin scares me!

can't say as i'm overly surprised as to the fact that the budget superscedes that of the Reagan era though.
the cost of living today has risen significantly and in order to circulate the buck, expanded military expeditures are definitely a proven method......and not bad life insurance if you're on the right side of the red button.

[plazul]

Originally Posted by Serenity

america's spending and advancement of nuclear technology concerns me...china's spending and advancement fuggin scares me!

can't say as i'm overly surprised as to the fact that the budget superscedes that of the Reagan era though.
the cost of living today has risen significantly and in order to circulate the buck, expanded military expeditures are definitely a proven method......and not bad life insurance if you're on the right side of the red button.

There is no right side of the red button.

[anastrophe]

i'm afraid i'm highly skeptical of the report. for one thing, 'bunker busting bombs' are not nukes. nor is there any need for them to be nukes, nor, that i can think of, any desire for them to be nukes.

secondly, the defense budget is bleeding red ink due to the iraq war, which, last i heard, was not a nuclear conflict. where on earth would the bucks be coming from to pay for nukes when they can barely pay for the iraq war?

i'd like to see a reference to a more mainstream periodical.

[plazul]

Originally Posted by anastrophe

i'm afraid i'm highly skeptical of the report. for one thing, 'bunker busting bombs' are not nukes. nor is there any need for them to be nukes, nor, that i can think of, any desire for them to be nukes.

secondly, the defense budget is bleeding red ink due to the iraq war, which, last i heard, was not a nuclear conflict. where on earth would the bucks be coming from to pay for nukes when they can barely pay for the iraq war?

i'd like to see a reference to a more mainstream periodical.

Bunker busters are nuclear weapons designed to burrow, for lack of a better way to put it, into a hardened target such as a nulear missile silo, and then detonate.

We are indeed spending more than we did during the Reagan years, adjusted for inflation, on nuclear weapons. And if you Google the words, nuclear weapons budget, (2004, 2005) you will find a number of credible sources to verify this. Take your pick. You can Google, nuclear bunker buster, too if you like.

I didn't make this stuff up. And as far as DoD being in the red goes, the whole government is running a monster deficit but that doesn't phase Bush.