Obama to seek major increase in nuclear weapons funding

[laststeamtrain]

Source: McClatchy Newspapers

Obama to seek major increase in nuclear weapons funding

By Jonathan S. Landay, McClatchy Newspapers Fri Jan 29, 7:21 pm ET

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration plans to ask Congress to increase spending on the U.S. nuclear arsenal by more than $5 billion over the next five years as part of its strategy to halt the spread of nuclear weapons and eventually rid the world of them.

The administration argues that the boost is needed to ensure that U.S. warheads remain secure and work as designed as the arsenal shrinks and ages nearly 18 years into a moratorium on underground testing and more than two decades after large-scale warhead production ended.

The increase is also required to modernize facilities — some dating to World War II — that support the U.S. stockpile and to retain experts who "will help meet the president's goal of securing vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide . . . and enable us to track and thwart nuclear trafficking (and) verify weapons reductions," Vice President Joe Biden wrote in a Friday Wall Street Journal opinion piece.

The administration will seek an initial $600 million increase for nuclear weapons programs in the proposed 2011 budget it submits to Congress on Monday. That would increase annual spending on those programs by about 10 percent, to almost $7 billion .

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100130/wl_mcclatchy/3413894

[Ter]

1. So increasing spending will halt the spread of nukes?

He thinks we're stupid.

[Robb]

12. Perhaps reading the article would help. nt

[Recursion]

19. RTFA

Yes, in fact, it will help halt proliferation.

[cliffordu]

54. Perhaps understanding what the fuck is written in the article....

nevermind.

[Yaeli]

96. Perhaps reading Biden's actual op-ed instead

Quite a bit different from the selectively quoted bits provided in this article. Not all peace and love. Read Biden's op-ed: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704878904575031382215508268.html

[katmondoo]

2. I am not happy with this

[WonderGrunion]

44. He's not building more nukes.

Please read the article. The headline is VERY misleading.

[Yaeli]

50. eh, yes, he is

One more time. Headline is correct it is the article that is misleading. Check out the other things that Biden said in the WSJ interview.

[cliffordu]

55. LInks please, not bullshit

[Yaeli]

92. link to original op-ed by Biden in WSJ

here you go: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704878904575031382215508268.html

[bossy22]

76. no he is not

no new nuclear weapons are to be produced. What biden is talking about is 2-fold though. Modernizing our arsenal is going to require much of the infrastructure that would be needed to build new nuclear weapons. Second, the investment into our nuclear weapons infrastructure will atleast give us an option to produce new nukes- god-forbid we need them (eventually though it may come down to the choice between completely disarming or, but also planning for the worst; the right way to do it

[wordpix]

99. I'm not happy with O's perpetuating nukes through more nuke power plants

[mikehiggins]

3. Whoa, Nellie. This is a good thing

Imagine what 18 years of neglect means in terms of nukes. Take a look at the threat the deteriorating Russian stockpiles mean to the world. Remember when the Bushoids "accidentally" transhipped a few nukes to an air station that was part of the pipeline to Iraq? If we want these things held securely, and tested to make sure they aren't going to set themselves off (remember SPACE 1999?) somebody is going to have to pay the freight.

If this money is intended for the purposes Biden laid out I'm 107% in favor of it.

edited to add:

And, to me at least, the heading on the story is misleading. They aren't talking about the old Bush idea about building new and more effective nukes, but getting (keeping) a handle on the ones we have. That is an entirely different issue.

[swilton]

41. So let's take the money appropriated for our endless wars

in Iraq, Afghanistan and the hundreds of bases we support around the world.

[lagavulin]

74. Does anyone here really believe our nuclear infrastructure has been allowed to just languish?

That $100's of billions in 'defense' spending every year have never really been used to secure and modernize America's nuclear deterrent capabilities? That just seems ridiculously irrational.

This is a stealth grant to that segment of the industrial warfare industry.

[bossy22]

77. umm...yes

I hope you know that most of our nuclear infrastructure is not paid for by the DOD...its actually paid for by the DOE (department of energy). the DOE controls our nuclear arsenal, infrastructure, testing sights and all that good stuff. What happens though is that when the DOE would build a nuclear weapon that DOD would buy it from them.

[OneBlueSky]

4. "to increase spending on the U.S. nuclear arsenal by more than $5 billion . . .

over the next five years as part of its strategy to halt the spread of nuclear weapons" . . .

"we had to destroy the village in order to save it" . . . a quote from the Vietnam war era . . .

[MissDeeds]

21. +1

Amazing, isn't it?

[Chulanowa]

32. Poor reading skills are cool!

Why read the article, when we can read the thread title and jump to a stupid conclusion?

OBAMA IS TEH EEEEEEEVULS!

[cliffordu]

57. It must be nice to be

that fucking willfully ignorant.

[No Elephants]

5. Limiting nukes was Obama's biggest accomplishment as Senator, IMO.

[FailureToCommunicate]

46. Right. Obama's trip to Russia as a freshman Senator made a big impression on

him, seeing the deplorable state of nuclear weapons security first hand. He was invited to go along with Sen. Lugar of Indiana. And he was reading Graham Allison's book on dangers of loose nuke and national security during the trip

link:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0509230360sep23,0,1103689.story

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. Damn Every time he does something I like, it's only a matter of time before he pisses me off again

Took less than 24 hours this time.

[WonderGrunion]

43. Spend a few minutes actually reading the article.

Maybe you won't be so pissed off anymore.

[proud2BlibKansan]

81. I am adamantly opposed to nuclear weapons

I doubt it.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

91. Have you read the article yet?

[athenasatanjesus]

7. What else do we have to defend against aliens?

All of you that criticize our nuclear arsenal now will be eating crow as soon as we are invaded by extra terrestrials and it turns out the only weapons we had to defend ourselves with were the nukes.

[kjones]

36. Pffff...

Any civilization that that could fly across deep space would scoff at our
nukes.
That's why Obama should propose building an interstellar space cruiser.
Then we can participate in wars at the galactic level.

Haha

[JNelson6563]

8. This is a good thing

This stuff needs to be secured. I wish this would get done elsewhere in the world where this stuff is not very secure.

But of course the hysterics on DU will not see it that way. In hysterical, black/white thinking this is to build more nuclear weapons, not secure the world from what exists. Oy.

Julie

[Kolesar]

9. The headline is surely misleading

This is great news.

The author, Landay, was one of the Knight Ridder reporters who reported the lies and bullshit leading up to the Iraq war. He had leads to other generals in the Pentagon who said the WMD story was a lie.

I guess that somebody else wrote the headline.

[JNelson6563]

15. Editors write the headlines

I believe that's how it works.

[Robb]

23. There used to be headline writers

...back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, it was a bit of an art, and you had someone on staff who did nothing but.

The "art" was getting the point across in whatever space was allowed.

[shadowknows69]

26. In the not so ancient days of the 90's I learned to write my own as a reporter.

Knowing full well, as you said, it may be sacrificed down the line in an editor's office, but I used to oome up with sound ones I think.

[hay rick]

45. Great news, mixed news.

Characterizing the increased spending as furthering non-proliferation and stockpile security goals may have an element of truth but is also an obvious sales pitch that I would take with a grain of salt.

From the article: "Some arms control advocates who ordinarily support the administration contend that the boost will fund unnecessary construction of new facilities that could give future administrations the ability to design and build new warheads, something that President Barack Obama has forsworn."

Committing ourselves to maintaining superior nuclear capability (as opposed to a sufficient capability) undermines our own stated non-proliferation goals. Why should any other major power consent to putting themselves permanently at our mercy?

[pundaint]

58. If our military, the most expensive in the world, isn't securing nukes now, shouldn't

we just fire them? They take half the budget already, but nothing is funded. How is the standard of living in America enhanced by the world-leading cash drain of our military.

[KG]

10. this is a good thing. we must retain the ability to safely blow up the planet 400 time over.

:eyes:

[L0oniX]

52. +1000 ...whew ...someone else gets it ...now I don't feel so alone.

[Forkboy]

69. While I certainly see your point, they're already here.

Let's make them safe while we work on reducing them. This is actually not a bad thing in that regard (in fact, it's overdue), though your larger message is understood.

[boppers]

70. We must retain the ability to know how to NOT do it, as well.

We currently have the weapons, being ignorant about them isn't exactly a safe goal.

[D23MIURG23]

11. Bad headline, good action.

The last think we need are malfunctioning nukes, or nukes that are insufficiently guarded. The headline make it sound like he is going to be producing more.

[Vinca]

13. That does it. I want to lose weight, so I'm going to buy chocolates.

[WonderGrunion]

42. Most diet foods are more expensive than junk food.

So if you wanted to lose weight you would spend more on food. See how that works?

[kudzu22]

100. I can confirm that theory nt

[caraher]

14. Can't we secure our weapons AND at least freeze spending

Suppose we commit to fiscal discipline in military spending, and finance the needed modernization by reducing the size of the nuclear forces (by decommissioning weapons, having fewer delivery systems, etc.) THAT would send a far more powerful message to the world that we're serious about non-proliferation and elimination of nuclear weapons.

[midnight]

35. This selling point of needing to spend more money for safety continues...

We can freeze military spending and be safe. We have the military intelligence to keep our weapons from going off if we want. Darn right it would send a powerful message about non-proliferation and elimination of nuclear weapons. Come on people let's stop buying fear......

[flyarm]

16. Why? why the fuck? what we don't have enough fucking nukes to blow everyone to kingdom come?

wtf..first the banks and wall street ..then big Pharma and all the health care industry..now the Nuke industry..and the MIT..what the fuck do we need more nukes for when we have people dying on the streets of hunger..and children and adults with no shelter?

WTF...so more of our tax dollars goes to killing machines and none to feedinign machines or health reasons..fuck no..more bombs..and more destruction!

I have had it!..moving to Canada is looking better by the day!

[berni_mccoy]

17. Get past the headline and actually read the article. The funding is not for making more nukes.

[saigon68]

18. More Govt jobs

With full boat benefits.

Just get rid of the damn things.

AND---- They will build more.

Lots of the stuff in the bunker is outdated and moldy, rusty etc.

USA USA USA

[Recursion]

20. Holy Misleading Headline, Batman!

Muckrake, much?

[Pavulon]

22. more jobs that cant be done by wipro

pantex can tear down old weapons and sandia and crew can build modern weapons out of the guts. Some of the most sophisticated milling work in the world is done by this sector.

No part of this process can be done offshore.

[thunder rising]

24. McClatchy Newspapers? What a joke. They learned headline skills from super market checkouts

[shadowknows69]

25. self delete/

[ShamelessHussy]

27. With all the messes we have created it probably sounds like a good idea to the elite

that no problem is too large for a nuke to solve :crazy:

[caseymoz]

28. Misleading headline: I don't want old, leaky nukes.

We have too many of the damn things and the cost of maintaining them goes up yearly.

It hasn't said he is funding the deployment of more.

[Yaeli]

40. re: misleading headline

Yes, actually there will be more. As I noted in post #39, the headline was correct but the article left out all the salient bits of Biden's comments to the WSJ about upgrading and increasing the arsenal. I quote some of them in that post.

[Vidar]

29. What the hell is wrong with him?

[disndat]

48. What's wrong with him?

I think Obama made a faustian bargain with the military industrial complex as Clinton did and any Democrat who wants to get to the WH must. Obama is good at spinning, making a frog look like a prince.

[heliarc]

30. Wow... if people at DU can't see through the Right wing Hype...

who will?

[Chulanowa]

34. Why would they want to see through it?

Most of these people are outright proponents of right-wing hype. Apparently they think reverse psychology works in politics or something.

[truth2power]

31. Annual spending for nukes...7 billion...

And we can't afford to provide universal health care for the American people.

I'll wait for someone here to support Obama on this.


eta> part of the funds will be used to hire experts who can "track and thwart nuclear trafficking". Ha hahaha.

Uh...Mr. President, we had someone who was tracking nuclear proliferation. Her name was Valerie Plame. Yeah, she was outed by Mr. Cheney. When is your DOJ going to put him on trial for treason?

Oh, I forgot....You're looking forward. Never mind.

[disndat]

78. $7 blllion

just for a start, no doubt.

[mbperrin]

33. Here's the problem:

"Essentially the new facilities would allow an increase in the production of new warheads if they wanted to do that. They (the Obama administration) say they don't, but the next administration could," said Stephen Young of the Union of Concerned Scientists . "There are risks . . . for our overall non-proliferation goals."

Getting rid of the damned things is the only way to make them safer.

[bossy22]

60. what happens if nuclear disarmarment goes awry

and countries start ramping up nuke production (which is quite possible). Shouldnt we have the option of being able to build up our arsenal again. It never hurts to have options. We could make an ideologic statement by dismantling everying- but that would be niave. The world is not going to just suddly hold hands and sing kumbaya

[mbperrin]

65. There's only one reason other countries want nukes - we have them.

We are the only country in the history of the world to use nuclear bombs on people.

I'd want protection, too, if I were them.

While we're what-iffing, what if it turns out that nuclear waste used in developing weapons is bad for people and kills some of them? What if we spend so much on other things, including nuclear weapons, that we could not afford health care for all our citizens? Dying and sick citizens as a result of some desire to be able to kill millions in one swat.

No, wait, that's what actually happened. We have sick people from this crap, and we don't have universal healthcare. That's the reality.

Now I must go and adjust the Dixie cups on my anti-Venusian attack preventer. It works perfectly, as you can see. No attacks from the planet Venus at all while it's been in operation.

[bossy22]

75. thats not the only reason they want nukes

its the only equalizer between us ahd "them". Most countries cannot not even hope of ever obtaining parity with the U.S. when it comes to conventional forces. So they need something that is devestating enough that they can threaten to use if we attack them. Thats why Russia now has been in investing heavily in R&D for new Nuke delivery systems. they believe it is an integral part of their defense in order to reach some military parity with the U.S. (the days of the huge soviet conventional force are behind them). In fact, the large soviet conventional force was the exact reason for placing Tactical and standard nuclear weapons in western europe since the U.S. realized NATO couldn't muster enough conventional forces in time to stop a Soviet advance into west germany.

Plus the healthcare argument is kinda silly in my mind. Its only 7 billion dollars we are spending on nuclear weapons compared to the trillions americans spend on health care- so that money would represent less than one percent. We could fund healthcare with spending money on nuclear modernization. The healthcare argument you are making is like someone saying they can't buy a can of soda because they are saving up for a new car.

[mbperrin]

79. As you say, they want parity. That means protection from us, the largest

gorilla on the planet and a bad-tempered one at that. Pull those gorilla teeth and quit swinging your arms around, poof - no need to achieve parity.

Thank you for making the argument for me.

You never dealt with the health effects of building these things, so that's another one for me.

BTW, you've obviously never put together a household budget in your life, because you do indeed make sacrifices every time you decide to spend on something else.

Ask your parents.

[bossy22]

80. doesnt work

the only reason they want parity with us is because it is impossible to become realistically more powerful than us. If we lower ourselves lets say to the point of a western european power such as germany, then there goal would be to become more powerful than us. Countries don't want to be equal- they almost always want to be the top dog in some shape or form- thats how you get "your way".

"You never dealt with the health effects of building these things, so that's another one for me."
what about the health effects of not maintaining them? We arent talking about building new ones in this case (the article) we are talking about maintainig them.

And for your information i have put a household budget together- i do it every year. Sacrifices do have to be made- absolutely but you missed my point. If something as little as 5 Billion dollar swing can bring down a 1 trillion dollar program then we couldn't realy afford the trillion dollar program in the first place. the issue here is leeway...whenever you make a budget you always try to free up money for discretionary spending or eventualities. If you are on a super-tight budget by choice then maybe its time to rethink what you spend your money on.

If you are borrowing 1.4 trillion a year...what effect would another 5 billion have? Very little.

So in conclusion...if 5 billion dollars spent on nuke modernization is going to prevent healthcare reform than maybe we should slow down and think about if we really can afford it. Because i can think of many things/events that could cost us more than 5 billion dollars

on edit: its 5 billion over the course of 5 years....that equals 1 billion a year. I don't think 1 billion spent on nukes is really going to affect if we can afford healthcare. The federal budget is not that tight.

[mbperrin]

85. You said, If you are borrowing 1.4 trillion a year...what effect would another 5 billion have?

Very little."

That's close enough to "deficits don't matter" for me. The ever-frugal Dick Cheney said that.

And you also wrote, "Countries don't want to be equal- they almost always want to be the top dog in some shape or form- thats how you get "your way". "

Our way? What way? The creation of an economy where the top 20% own 90% of everything, and the bottom 20$ own less than 1%; a country where the poor join the military as their only option; where 1/6 of the population cannot get and should not have healthcare; that kind of way? That's where we're at.

Please just stick with your patriarchical ways; you can justify anything by blaming it on "everybody else does the same" without regard to whether a thing is right or not, worth doing or not.

I can see that we are irreconcilably different, so I will bid you a good day.

[sulphurdunn]

37. Elimination of nuclear weapons

is a political refrain going back to Kennedy. Neither the US nor any other nation that has them has any intention of eliminating them. The power to unleash hell on earth is not the kind of leverage any government would abandon, least of all the most powerful one.

[bossy22]

62. exactly

that is the truth. One thing i might add is that many countries look at nuclear weapons as their only equalizer when it comes to the US military since the U.S. military is such a dominating conventional force

and at some point russia is going to say no (disarmarment). If you look at their military plans, they are planning a whole new fleet of ICBM's in the next 20 years which signals that they have no intent on disarming completely and that they see nuclear weapons to play a significant role in their military.

[groundloop]

38. Horribly misleading headline, people jumping to conclusions that are incorrect

So...This one has earned an unrec from me.

[Yaeli]

39. Headline CORRECT, content of article leaves out salient bits

The author cites the bit about the boost being needed to secure weapons and verify weapons reductions. He didn't mention the points that were made in the bulk of Biden's comments such as: "For almost a decade, our laboratories and facilities have been underfunded and undervalued,’ he said. “This investment is long overdue. It will strengthen our ability to recruit, train and retain the skilled people we need to maintain our nuclear capabilities. It will support the work of our nuclear labs, <b>a national treasure</b> that we must and will sustain.” He noted, “Even in a time of tough budget decisions, these are investments we must make for our security."

A significant portion of the budget will be used "to fund major new investments in our stockpile and infrastructure."

Other members of the administration are on record as saying the nuclear arsenal needs to be brought up the current cutting edge capabilities in order for the U.S, to maintain its deterrent capabilities, arguing that Bush did not do so because he was pinning his hopes on funding for a program to develop new forms of nuclear capability (e.g. that no other country would have) when he should have focused on a straight upgrade and increase of the U.S, nuclear arsenal.

[caseymoz]

66. None of that says that they are going to increase the number.

Though they might be talking around it. "More nuclear capabilities" might mean more bombs, bigger bombs, or craftier bombs. Fact is, some of those warheads should be retired they are so old. Safety would call for it. Even decommissioning them and then handling the nuclear material is a big cost.

We already have an arsenal we cannot afford to guard or maintain and have been falling behind on it.

Increasing the budget to do this would be called for, even if they were shrinking the arsenal.

I just don't think that an arms reduction treaty would be negotiated if the US were tooling up to increase its arsenal. Russia would be complaining, loudly.

[dana_b]

71. here is the link to the article you quoted

http://blog.taragana.com/politics/2010/01/28/op-ed-by-vice-president-joe-biden-in-todays-wall-street-journal-15999/

I'm not sure that they are talking about increasing but more maintaining what we have and ensuring security. Biden didn't say anything about "a straight upgrade and increase of the U.S, nuclear arsenal" though. What members of the administration said that? Maybe someday we'll actually get to the dismantling phase.

[Yaeli]

93. re: link

I'll try to find that link again. It was someone from the administration interviewed by one of the British newspapers but I can't remember which. This all got sparked from an op-ed that Biden wrote for the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704878904575031382215508268.html and, of course, there has now been a lot more coverage and interviews concerning it.

[dana_b]

97. thanks for the link

we'l have to keep our ears open for more info on this. I hope it's truly to secure and "maintain" but not to build up. Enough of the cold wars, we have enough hot ones going on now.

[soleft]

47. The headline here is totally leading people astray

Even the excerpt in the OP makes it clear this is a positive step.

[JBoy]

49. Good thing those reacting based on the headline aren't on duty in a missile silo.

[L0oniX]

51. Spending more to help reduce...WTF

Yea ...our spending more will help the world reduce its nukes and stop the spread of nukes ...pffft ...we'll do anything to keep our nukes in fine shape and keep spending huge money on the military. No end in sight! You all can keep going with your fucking weapons and war and killing. Fuck helping our own people. ...asshole sociopaths

[caseymoz]

67. In all fairness, it would be initially very expensive to decommission the nukes.

It's expensive to add any, to maintain and guard the ones we have, or get rid of them.

[L0oniX]

88. One thing is for sure ...the less of them we have the less maintenance costs

I always thought we should have one huge bomb far enough down in the earth and big enough to actually blow the earth to pieces. That way there would be no aftermath for anyone.

:sarcasm:

[eilen]

83. peace is war... I see the consistency. nt

[grahamhgreen]

53. FAIL. Proliferation.

[SlingBlade]

56. Change .....

Change You Can Believe In :)

[bossy22]

59. common sense

people don't realize that this money isn't used to build more nukes- it is being used to shore up and modernize our current aging arsenal. This money is going to go to make sure the weapons will (god-forbid) work if they have and make sure that they are being stored safely. This is the right decision by obama, we have them and we are going to continue to have them so we better make sure they are in safe condition. The worst thing to do is under-fund modernization and have a russia situation; a situation in which you have nuclear weapons but no idea of what condition there in (there are rumors that some of them are in such terrible condition that there is a good chance they may be leaking alot of radiation)

Obama is being pragmatic- he wants to work towards a nuclear free world but as long as countries have nukes, he is going to make sure that the we have a strong arsenal.

[Lionel Mandrake]

61. This looks like a jobs program for Oak Ridge and Los Alamos.

All them nukular scientists gotta eat, too.

And don't forget the workers in Livermore, California. They deserve their share of the nukular jobs.

[ronnie624]

63. Obama presses review of nuclear strategy

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4209238>

[Juche]

64. That is an extremely misleading headline

[Duppers]

73. + 1

it really is and I wish people here would read passed the damn headline.

[defendandprotect]

68. What a horror show this is .... !!!

[showpan]

72. This is bullshit...

more money for any nuclear program is just a another neocon ideal giving more money away to those corporations who make them. I read the fucking article and just like everything else that has come out of this administration...it's pure bullshit. Bush handed out money for development of new warheads and Obama is continuing with the same research and development. Not only would it cost less to dismantle, you would also save on infrastructure and personel costs Instead, they are increasing the spending for all of it...WTF...The sheep in this country are in such denial...no different from the last administration. We are increasing spending on nukes so we can get rid of them...OMG what a bunch of fucking liars and I am shocked that dems would fall for it.


had to edit spelling...lol

[eilen]

84. I wish I could rec your post.

You are right. This is bullshit, doublespeak, vague enough to give plausible deniability. No one invests so much cash in something to throw it away.

If this was an article about Bush increasing the budget for nukes and it said exactly the same thing.. no one would believe it. But because it is about Obama, there are more apologists for nuclear arms funding than you can shake a stick at. I call it the halo effect.

I don't believe Obama is evil or a horrible person but I do believe he is a politician and a pragmatist. He also gives too much away to promote the perception that he is "reasonable." I don't believe he is a man of peace or social justice. Those are two "unreasonable" positions to stand up for.

[Yaeli]

94. re: this is bullshit

Actually Bush didn't hand out any money for new warheads. The money he designated was solely for maintaining existing warheads (they degenerate and pose radiation risks if not maintained). The last nuclear warhead built in the U.S. was in 1989-- the warhead used on the Trident missile. (450 kt). Bush actually held money back from the nuclear program (one of the reasons the Obama administration is castigating the Bush admin for the fact that the nuclear program has been basically ignored for the past 10 years) because he was pushing for a program to develop new nuclear weapons technology and he didn't get it.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fascisthunter]

82. oh boy

nevermind

[drdtroit]

86. Healthcare for Americans?

nah, fuck 'em!

[unkachuck]

87. "...more than $5 billion over the next five years..."

....there is absolutely no end to the myriad of ways we can piss away money on weaponry....we renew and develop as we demand NK and Iran cease their nuclear activities....

....and you wonder why people around the world don't like us....

[newtothegame]

89. Yeah baby this Is the President I elected! Nuke the world baby! n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

90. It's barely a page of writing and yet so many people couldn't be arsed to read it.

Wonderful.

[Yaeli]

95. Article incorrect read Biden's actual op-ed in the WSJ

The article written here very (very) selectively and misleadingly quotes what the money is to be used for. Check out what Biden actually said in his op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704878904575031382215508268.html

[Grateful for Hope]

101. kick

[The Northerner]

102. Obama seeks money for nuclear weapons work

Source: Associated Press

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – President Barack Obama is seeking increased funding for nuclear weapons research and security programs next year, even as his administration promotes nonproliferation and has pledged to reduce the world's stockpile of nuclear arms.

The administration on Monday asked Congress for more than $7 billion for activities related to nuclear weapons in the budget of the National Nuclear Security Administration, an increase of $624 million from the 2010 fiscal year.

NNSA Administrator Thomas D'Agostino defended putting more money into the programs, saying the U.S. needs the best nuclear weapons facilities, scientists, technicians and engineers as it moves toward eventual disarmament.

"This budget is implementing the president's nuclear vision," he said.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100202/ap_on_re_us/us_nuclear_lab_budgets_1

[T Wolf]

103. This statement clearly illustrates the insanity of this move and the wrong-headed thinking too-often

coming from this administration - "the U.S. needs the best nuclear weapons facilities, scientists, technicians and engineers as it moves toward eventual disarmament."

[optimator]

104. maybe he could sell his Nobel prize on ebay

to pitch in to the funding of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

[bossy22]

105. good

we need to have a well funded nuclear weapons stewardship program- whether its for maintaining our stockpile or deactivating it (which actually costs more money than maintaining). If we don't fund it we will end up being like Russia- a large stockpile but don't know what condition its in

[FailureToCommunicate]

106. This has been nit picked over already several days ago. See the link:

link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4249803&mesg_id=4249803

[Snazzy]

107. AP quotes Los Alamos Study Group:

Greg Mello, director of the nuclear watchdog Los Alamos Study Group, said budgets for NNSA and DOE have increased in recent years, but the nation "hasn't seen any increase in weapons activities like this since the early years of Ronald Reagan."

He called the budget "a complete surrender to Senate Republicans," who have argued that stockpile reductions must be accompanied by a modernized nuclear weapons complex.

(from linked)

--------


Administration Budget Plan Contradicts Obama Pledge to Reduce Nuclear Weapons Threat
Billions to be spent on new nuclear weapons production facilities

WASHINGTON - February 1 - The Administration's budget, released today, contradicts President Obama's pledge to reduce the nuclear weapons threat by working toward their elimination, according to a national network of groups in communities downwind and downstream from U.S. nuclear sites. Instead, the spending plan boosts funding for nuclear weapons production facilities by $625 million from last year.

The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA) said that the Obama budget includes large increases for a new plutonium production facility in Los Alamos, New Mexico and for a new highly enriched uranium production facility near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, each estimated to cost about $3 billion. The budget also fails to list a new privately financed $700 million plant, which will produce nonnuclear components for nuclear weapons in Kansas City, Missouri.

...

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/02/01-3