Obama wants to cut the military but increase Nuclear abilities

[orangesunset]

For what ever baffling reason, Obama wants to cut conventional military spending and increase nuclear missle spending. USA already has a far greater amount of nuclear missles then Russia or China. On the other hand due to the last 10 years of warfare, much of the conventional American equipment needs replacement. Many of the tanks and AFVs used in Iraq and Afghanistan are inoperational due to lack of spare parts.

President Barack Obama will propose spending cuts for many federal programs in the 2016 budget request he’ll send to Congress on Monday, but not for nuclear weapons. Quite the contrary, Obama’s administration is proposing to go on a nuclear weapons spending spree. This is an expensive and profound mistake, and one that ignores the limited contribution that nuclear weapons make to U.S. security.

Obama’s Trillion Dollar Nuclear Weapons Gamble - Defense One

 

[Redheart]

Conventional warfare is history. Weapons of mass destruction are the future. Obama understands quite well that in the event of war, enemies won't hesitate to use their nuclear weapons. So the more you have, the greater your chances of annihilating all your enemies no matter how many they might be. Maybe [in the distant future] when every country is armed with a few nukes, shall we see some uneasy peace settle over the world.

 

[awesomeaniruddh]

I agree with Redheart. With every country working on nuclear weapons and expanding their arsenal, it is not surprising that Obama wants USA to stay head. What I disagree with is increasing the funding at the cost of other programs. How is a nuke supposed to help the country when terrorists attack within the borders? They won't nuke parts of their own country, will they?

 

[xTinx]

Now this is what I find ironic about America. Wasn't it against nuclear proliferation some decades ago? I see the tides have changed and they're back in the game. Perhaps thanks to ISIS, Russia and those elements creating a ruckus in various parts of the world. Well personally I see no problem with that. If nuclear is the answer to eliminating the existence of terrorists and racial fanatics. My only concern is that you can't control nuclear weapons once they blow up. They'll erase everything in their way. Obama has to think of a better plan where innocent lives won't be sacrificed meaninglessly.

 

[KimberlyD]

Obama has too much power and not enough brains to use it. I can't wait until he is out of office. The man thinks he can do whatever he wants with no consequences... the problem is, he's right cause no one has done anything so far.

 

[kittyworker]

Obama has too much power and not enough brains to use it. I can't wait until he is out of office. The man thinks he can do whatever he wants with no consequences... the problem is, he's right cause no one has done anything so far.

I'm more concerned with who replaces him. Right now the two front runners are Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, I'd hate to vote for another Bush but I can't stand Hillary Clinton.

 

[User911]

For what ever baffling reason, Obama wants to cut conventional military spending and increase nuclear missle spending. USA already has a far greater amount of nuclear missles then Russia or China. On the other hand due to the last 10 years of warfare, much of the conventional American equipment needs replacement. Many of the tanks and AFVs used in Iraq and Afghanistan are inoperational due to lack of spare parts.

President Barack Obama will propose spending cuts for many federal programs in the 2016 budget request he’ll send to Congress on Monday, but not for nuclear weapons. Quite the contrary, Obama’s administration is proposing to go on a nuclear weapons spending spree. This is an expensive and profound mistake, and one that ignores the limited contribution that nuclear weapons make to U.S. security.

Obama’s Trillion Dollar Nuclear Weapons Gamble - Defense One

 

[User911]

For what ever baffling reason, Obama wants to cut conventional military spending and increase nuclear missle spending. USA already has a far greater amount of nuclear missles then Russia or China. On the other hand due to the last 10 years of warfare, much of the conventional American equipment needs replacement. Many of the tanks and AFVs used in Iraq and Afghanistan are inoperational due to lack of spare parts.

President Barack Obama will propose spending cuts for many federal programs in the 2016 budget request he’ll send to Congress on Monday, but not for nuclear weapons. Quite the contrary, Obama’s administration is proposing to go on a nuclear weapons spending spree. This is an expensive and profound mistake, and one that ignores the limited contribution that nuclear weapons make to U.S. security.

Obama’s Trillion Dollar Nuclear Weapons Gamble - Defense One

This seems to be really bizarre news to me. From everything I've read, Barack has always said he wants to reduce our nuclear capabilities and in the past week I read that because of reductions we were now behind Russia when it came to nuclear weapons. I think in some of his speeches overseas that he even mentioned he wanted to get nuclear weapons down to zero! He has already said he won't retaliate with nuclear weapons if we are attacked with biological or chemical weapons. I have no idea as to what he is up to.

 

[kestas57]

I don't think this is bad idea. Use more deterrence rather than have the troops do it for you. Although, I'm not quite sure whether the US needs a more developed nuclear arsenal. I mean, the US has more damn nukes than brains. Do they really need more?

 

[orangesunset]

What I disagree with is increasing the funding at the cost of other programs. How is a nuke supposed to help the country when terrorists attack within the borders? They won't nuke parts of their own country, will they?

I agree with this point, how many nukes do you need to destroy USA or Russia ? 200 probably will do the job. Having anything more then the needed amount wastes money. As ISIS has shown, nukes have no value when the enemy is inside your country, if the Americans would nuke them, they are actually playing into ISIS's hands.

ISIS is ultimately the modern form of warfare, spread you guys out among the other guy's stuff. That way he can not use nukes.

 

[Rowe992]

Well maybe Obama suspects that America will have a major conflict with Russia within the next decade hence the need to stock pile nuclear weapons. When the enemy is within your own country and in the country of allies then nuclear weapons become useless. They should cut spending on the various bases they have all over the world because clearly the world will not reach the level of ww2 because nuclear weapons will destroy almost everyone.

 

[Shimus]

Everyone is so focused on "Nuke this" and "Nuke that" that they even have cut space programs. What happened to the era when we raced other nations to get out to space first? To be on the moon? What happened to that drive to expand, where we fell back. Wish we (as a world) could unite to make a space fund to build the best ship mankind has seen, to go explore places beyond. I know the best scientific minds could do it, when put together. Geniuses breed inspiration, it's said.

 

[003]

For what ever baffling reason, Obama wants to cut conventional military spending and increase nuclear missle spending. USA already has a far greater amount of nuclear missles then Russia or China. On the other hand due to the last 10 years of warfare, much of the conventional American equipment needs replacement. Many of the tanks and AFVs used in Iraq and Afghanistan are inoperational due to lack of spare parts.

President Barack Obama will propose spending cuts for many federal programs in the 2016 budget request he’ll send to Congress on Monday, but not for nuclear weapons. Quite the contrary, Obama’s administration is proposing to go on a nuclear weapons spending spree. This is an expensive and profound mistake, and one that ignores the limited contribution that nuclear weapons make to U.S. security.

Obama’s Trillion Dollar Nuclear Weapons Gamble - Defense One

It's really baffling that Obama wants to increase the budget for the Nuclear arms development and cut down the conventional military spending. I didn't know that they have far more number of nuclear weapons as compared to China and Russia. So, I think that it's not necessary at all. But I think this is the agenda itself. They would tell the world that they will increase their nuclear capability and decrease their conventional military force to intimidate China and Russia. Because China and Russia aren't as rich as USA, they wouldn't be able to keep up. In short they would be pressure by the USA to do what USA wants them to do.

 

[Brady2121]

Everyone is so focused on "Nuke this" and "Nuke that" that they even have cut space programs. What happened to the era when we raced other nations to get out to space first? To be on the moon? What happened to that drive to expand, where we fell back. Wish we (as a world) could unite to make a space fund to build the best ship mankind has seen, to go explore places beyond. I know the best scientific minds could do it, when put together. Geniuses breed inspiration, it's said.

I agree. I personally think the choice to cut the space program was a huge mistake. But what do I know?

 

[Shimus]

It's not even the fact of the space program, though that is admittedly a huge part of it. We've cut domestic spending to most of our programs in favor of another Cold War (what else can stockpiling Nukes as a deterrent be called at this point).

And we're supposed to be the enlightened country. If only we could dump that money into eco-friendly resources and green measures, but big companies don't like that.