PDA

View Full Version : Obama 'Nobel Peace Prize-winner Barack Obama ups spending on nuclear weapons


petegz28
01-29-2010, 05:18 PM
'Nobel Peace Prize-winner Barack Obama ups spending on nuclear weapons to even more than George Bush'

President Obama is planning to increase spending on America's nuclear weapons stockpile just days after pledging to try to rid the world of them.
In his budget to be announced on Monday, Mr Obama has allocated £4.3billion to maintain the U.S. arsenal - £370million more than George Bush spent on nuclear weapons in his final year.

The Obama administration also plans to spend a further £3.1billion over the next five years on nuclear security.

The announcement comes despite the American President declaring nuclear weapons were the ‘greatest danger’ to U.S. people during in his State of the Union address on Wednesday.
And it flies in the face of Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, awarded to him in October for ‘his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples’.

The Nobel committee was attacked at the time for bestowing the accolade on a new president whose initiatives are yet to bear fruit – which included reducing the world stock of nuclear arms.


The budget is higher than that allocated by George Bush – who was seen by many as a warmongering president in the wake of the Iraq invasion in 2003 – during his premiership.
During his 70-minute State of the UNion speech on Wednesday, which marked his first year in office, Obama said: 'I have embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons, and seeks a world without them.'
However, Vice President Joe Biden today supported the increase on nuclear weapons maintenance, saying: ‘Even in a time of tough budget decisions, these are investments we must make for our security.

‘We are committed to working with Congress to ensure these budget increases are approved.’

Biden said the Obama administration had inherited a ‘steady decline’ in support for U.S. nuclear stockpiles and infrastructure.

‘For almost a decade, our laboratories and facilities have been underfunded and undervalued,’ he said.

‘The consequences of this neglect - like the growing shortage of skilled nuclear scientists and engineers and the ageing of critical facilities - have largely escaped public notice.

‘The budget we will submit to Congress on Monday both reverses this decline and enables us to implement the president's nuclear-security agenda.’
He added: '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, a national treasure that we must and will sustain.'

The Obama administration will publish its budget for fiscal year 2011 on Monday.
The proposal will include a budget increase for nuclear issues while paring back other areas in an effort to control record deficits.

Biden said those steps along with others to advance non-proliferation were essential to ‘holding nations like North Korea and Iran accountable when they break the rules, and deterring others from trying to do so’.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1247049/Nobel-Peace-Prize-winner-Barack-Obama-ups-spending-nuclear-weapons-George-Bush.html

memyselfI
01-29-2010, 05:18 PM
DISLIKE.

HonestChieffan
01-29-2010, 05:21 PM
I thought a month ago we were throwing them away

Jenson71
01-29-2010, 05:40 PM
Administration public rationale explained:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704878904575031382215508268.html

By JOE BIDEN

The United States faces no greater threat than the spread of nuclear weapons. That is why, last April in Prague, President Obama laid out a comprehensive agenda to reverse their spread, and to pursue the peace and security of a world without them. The key word is spread. Not get rid of our own.

He understands that this ultimate goal will not be reached quickly. But by acting on a number of fronts, we can ensure our security, strengthen the global nonproliferation regime, and keep vulnerable nuclear material out of terrorist hands.

For as long as nuclear weapons are required to defend our country and our allies, we will maintain a safe, secure and effective nuclear arsenal. The president's Prague vision is central to this administration's efforts to protect the American people—and that is why we are increasing investments in our nuclear arsenal and infrastructure in this year's budget and beyond.

Among the many challenges our administration inherited was the slow but steady decline in support for our nuclear stockpile and infrastructure, and for our highly trained nuclear work force. The stockpile, infrastructure and work force played a critical and evolving role in every stage of our nuclear experience, from the Manhattan Project to the present day. Once charged with developing ever more powerful weapons, they have had a new mission in the 18 years since we stopped conducting nuclear tests. That is to maintain the strength of the nuclear arsenal.

For almost a decade, our laboratories and facilities have been underfunded and undervalued. The consequences of this neglect—like the growing shortage of skilled nuclear scientists and engineers and the aging of critical facilities—have largely escaped public notice. Last year, the Strategic Posture Commission led by former Defense Secretaries William Perry and James Schlesinger warned that our nuclear complex requires urgent attention. We agree.

The budget we will submit to Congress on Monday both reverses this decline and enables us to implement the president's nuclear-security agenda. These goals are intertwined. The same skilled nuclear experts who maintain our arsenal play a key role in guaranteeing our country's security now and for the future. State-of-the art facilities, and highly trained and motivated people, allow us to maintain our arsenal without testing. They will help meet the president's goal of securing vulnerable nuclear materials world-wide in the coming years, and enable us to track and thwart nuclear trafficking, verify weapons reductions, and to develop tomorrow's cutting-edge technologies for our security and prosperity.

To achieve these goals, our budget devotes $7 billion for maintaining our nuclear-weapons stockpile and complex, and for related efforts. This commitment is $600 million more than Congress approved last year. And over the next five years we intend to boost funding for these important activities by more than $5 billion. Even in a time of tough budget decisions, these are investments we must make for our security. We are committed to working with Congress to ensure these budget increases are approved.

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, a national treasure that we must and will sustain. Many of our facilities date back to World War II, and, given the safety and environmental challenges they present, cannot be sustained much longer. Increased funding now will eventually enable considerable savings on both security and maintenance. It also will allow us to clean up and close down production facilities we no longer need.

Our budget request is just one of several closely related and equally important initiatives giving life to the president's Prague agenda. Others include completing the New START agreement with Russia, releasing the Nuclear Posture Review on March 1, holding the Nuclear Security Summit in April, and pursuing ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

We will by these initiatives seek to strengthen an emerging bipartisan consensus on how best to secure our nation. These steps will strengthen the nonproliferation regime, which is vital to holding nations like North Korea and Iran accountable when they break the rules, and deterring others from trying to do so.

Reflecting this consensus, Sen. John McCain has joined the president in endorsing a world without nuclear weapons—a goal that was articulated by President Ronald Reagan, who in 1984 said these weapons must be "banished from the face of the Earth." This consensus was inspired by four of our most eminent statesmen—Messrs. Henry Kissinger, William Perry, Sam Nunn and George P. Shultz.

Some critics will argue that we should not constrain our nuclear efforts in any way. Others will assert that retaining a robust deterrent is at odds with our nonproliferation agenda. These four leaders last week in these pages argued compellingly that "maintaining high confidence in our nuclear arsenal is critical as the numbers of these weapons goes down. It is also consistent with and necessary for U.S. leadership in nonproliferation, risk reduction and arms reduction goals."

This shared commitment serves our security. No nation can secure itself by disarming unilaterally, but as long as nuclear weapons exist, all nations remain ever on the brink of destruction. As President Obama said in Prague, "We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it."

Mr. Biden is vice president of the United States.

Donger
01-29-2010, 06:07 PM
While I applaud Obama for spending what is required to maintain our nuclear arsenal, I couldn't help look up what he said when a candidate:

"As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we'll make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy." July 2008

In April as POTUS:

"Nuclear weapons are the most dangerous legacies of the Cold War," Obama said in a speech in front of a huge crowd outside the medieval Prague Castle in the Czech Republic. "The U.S. will take concrete steps. ... We will begin the work of reducing our arsenals and stockpiles."

The president, who was on an eight-day visit to Europe, warned that if some nations defy orders to get rid of nuclear weapons, America will maintain a safe and secure nuclear capability "to deter our adversaries and reassure our allies."

KCWolfman
01-29-2010, 08:35 PM
Actually peace is kept through a strong defense.

I got his back on this one.

Brock
01-29-2010, 09:07 PM
I don't disagree either, but he's still a major hypocrite.

petegz28
01-29-2010, 10:06 PM
It's not the fact he is spending on nukes. It's the fact he in running at his mouth saying the complete opposite.

alnorth
01-29-2010, 11:03 PM
I dont really see the contradiction here. A nuclear-free world may be a noble goal, but he didnt say we'd start reducing our weapons tomorrow. We're spending a little money to maintain what we got, big deal.

blaise
01-29-2010, 11:42 PM
It's not his fault the idiots at the Nobel Prize committee gave him the award based on nothing.

Direckshun
01-29-2010, 11:59 PM
Actually peace is kept through a strong defense.

I got his back on this one.

Peace is actually kept through pluralism and trade, but whatever.

We have a brilliant defense now, how's all that peace working out for us?

Direckshun
01-30-2010, 12:00 AM
It's not the fact he is spending on nukes. It's the fact he in running at his mouth saying the complete opposite.

I completely agree.

Although the idea of spending more on nukes is a problem.

Norman Einstein
01-30-2010, 05:17 AM
Peace is actually kept through pluralism and trade, but whatever.

We have a brilliant defense now, how's all that peace working out for us?

You seem to completely misunderstand where we are with our 'defense'.

We have a lower number of men and women in the military now than in the past 70 years. The deterrent is useful against a nation, but we are now fighting a war against extremists. Now is not a time to reduce military but to redirect their assignments to find those extremists and their leaders and exterminate them like the insects they are.

Jenson71
01-30-2010, 12:51 PM
You seem to completely misunderstand where we are with our 'defense'.

We have a lower number of men and women in the military now than in the past 70 years. The deterrent is useful against a nation, but we are now fighting a war against extremists. Now is not a time to reduce military but to redirect their assignments to find those extremists and their leaders and exterminate them like the insects they are.

The nuclear bombs and the rogue terrorist groups we are fighting are two different things. The rogue terrorist groups are stateless. The nuclear bombs are for states (Iran, North Korea) that we don't want nuclear weapons.

Can you ever think of a case where we would use nuclear weapons to fight al-Qaeda? Really, there are none.

HonestChieffan
01-30-2010, 12:55 PM
Peace is actually kept through pluralism and trade, but whatever.

We have a brilliant defense now, how's all that peace working out for us?


We don't have a brilliant defense and our enemies know it. But that isn't important to the left. Never has been.

Jenson71
01-30-2010, 01:02 PM
We don't have a brilliant defense and our enemies know it. But that isn't important to the left. Never has been.
Yes, we do have a brilliant defense.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-30-2010, 01:09 PM
This man ALWAYS and i stress ALWAYS says one thing and then does the complete opposite. America elected a wall street puppet, the sooner we face reality the easier it will become to see the obvious. This is Bush's 3rd term.

Norman Einstein
01-30-2010, 04:21 PM
The nuclear bombs and the rogue terrorist groups we are fighting are two different things. The rogue terrorist groups are stateless. The nuclear bombs are for states (Iran, North Korea) that we don't want nuclear weapons.

Can you ever think of a case where we would use nuclear weapons to fight al-Qaeda? Really, there are none.

It again looks like you are not aware of the situation, it doesn't surprise me.

Using a nuke against AQ would be like sticking one in your house. The U.S. would never do that.

Are you saying that you are willing to empty the nuclear quiver?

Jenson71
01-30-2010, 05:02 PM
It again looks like you are not aware of the situation, it doesn't surprise me.

Using a nuke against AQ would be like sticking one in your house. The U.S. would never do that.

Are you saying that you are willing to empty the nuclear quiver?

1. You agreed with me about the U.S. not (though you say never) using a nuke against AQ.

2. Where do you get the idea that I am willing to empty the nuclear 'quiver'?

banyon
01-30-2010, 05:49 PM
This is certainly qualitatively better than George Bush being "tough on terrorism" and gutting the anti-proliferation budget.

It's not like this money is being spent on building new ones, or even R&D on new types like Bush was doing with the "bunker-busters" and mutliple warhead tracking/chaff R&D.

Securing our existing arsenal is probably just common sense, unless we are ready to retire some, which if no one else was willing, then you guys would bitch about that too.

Norman Einstein
01-30-2010, 06:54 PM
2. Where do you get the idea that I am willing to empty the nuclear 'quiver'?

What you wrote was not clear. So do you or do you not want to rid the U.S. of nuclear weapons like Obama once said?

Norman Einstein
01-30-2010, 07:02 PM
This is certainly qualitatively better than George Bush being "tough on terrorism" and gutting the anti-proliferation budget.

It's not like this money is being spent on building new ones, or even R&D on new types like Bush was doing with the "bunker-busters" and mutliple warhead tracking/chaff R&D.

Securing our existing arsenal is probably just common sense, unless we are ready to retire some, which if no one else was willing, then you guys would bitch about that too.

Bunker busters were used in the early 90's. W had nothing to do with their early development. He may have continued on with them, but so did Clinton, via the military acquisitions while he was in office.
http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Research/2002BB.pdf

They were used against Saddam in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm. The U.S. tried to get Saddam in his Soviet built bunker/headquarters with the bunker busters. If I remember correctly those were expended 155mm cannon barrels that were outfitted with guidance and delayed fuses. They used kinetic energy to bust through the concrete in the bunker.

banyon
01-30-2010, 07:37 PM
Bunker busters were used in the early 90's. W had nothing to do with their early development. He may have continued on with them, but so did Clinton, via the military acquisitions while he was in office.
http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Research/2002BB.pdf

They were used against Saddam in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm. The U.S. tried to get Saddam in his Soviet built bunker/headquarters with the bunker busters. If I remember correctly those were expended 155mm cannon barrels that were outfitted with guidance and delayed fuses. They used kinetic energy to bust through the concrete in the bunker.

I was not referring to conventional bunker busters that were used in the first gulf war. I was referring to the attempt to adapt that technology to outfit with nuclear warheads, and yes, Bush did have something to do with that.


Bush Request to Fund Nuclear Study Revives Debate
Administration Wants to Research 'Bunker Buster,' but Critics Seek to Reassess U.S. Readiness

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9148-2005Feb8.html

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 9, 2005; Page A09
The Bush administration is seeking $8.5 million to resume a study by the Energy and Defense departments on the feasibility of a nuclear "bunker buster" warhead, but the proposal is generating opposition in Congress and some leaders are pushing for a broader review of the nation's multibillion-dollar nuclear weapons programs.

Rep. David L. Hobson (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that handles the $6 billion-plus annual budget of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, says he wants to raise fundamental questions this year about the size of the U.S. nuclear stockpile and why so many weapons remain on high levels of alert.

"Why are we still preparing to fight the last war?" Hobson asked in a speech last week to the Arms Control Association. "The time has come for a thoughtful and open debate on the role of nuclear weapons in our country's national security strategy."

The Ohio Republican, backed by a bipartisan group of House members, last year killed the nuclear bunker-buster study, a version of which was revived in the budget presented to Congress on Monday after Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld urged last month that the project be revived as a means to attack hardened deep-underground targets.

Last year, Hobson moved $9 million that the administration sought to do research on "advanced concepts" for nuclear warheads and instead directed the funds be spent to study ways to improve the reliability and lifespan of existing warheads. Calling it research for a "reliable replacement warhead," Hobson planned that it would "challenge the workforce [of the national nuclear laboratories] while at the same time refurbishing some existing weapons in the stockpile without developing a new weapon that would require underground testing."

"Until we have a real debate and develop a comprehensive plan for the U.S. nuclear stockpile and the DOE [Department of Energy] weapons complex, we are left arguing over isolated projects such as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator," as the bunker buster is officially known, he said.

In the president's budget released Monday, the Energy Department sought $4 million to continue its part of the bunker-buster study, which envisions using the warhead now in the B-83 nuclear bomb designed originally by the Livermore Nuclear Laboratory. Previously, a study was also underway at Los Alamos National Laboratory to see whether its B-61 tactical nuclear bomb could be used in a bunker buster.

The Pentagon is seeking an additional $4.5 million next year to work on the hardened, earth-penetrating shell for the warhead, capable of digging into hard cement and even rock before exploding.

With about $16.8 million already spent on the study in past years, the administration projected this week that it would need an additional $14 million to complete the study by 2007. Even then, work could not go forward on developing the bunker buster unless Congress gave specific approval.

Hobson is studying the president's requests, a spokesman said yesterday, and had no immediate comment on the budget.

Two Democratic House members, Reps. Edward J. Markey (Mass.) and Ellen Tauscher (Calif.), criticized the funds for the bunker-buster study when the budget was released Monday.

"The Bush budget request for new nuclear weapons will face tough scrutiny by the Congress and I am hopeful that these requests will again be rejected," Markey said in a statement. Tauscher called the request "a waste of money on a weapon commanders in the field have not asked for, is of highly questionable utility, and may trigger a new global nuclear arms race."

Hobson said he wants Congress to focus on other issues as well, including whether the United States can reduce the number of operational warheads beyond the cuts -- from about 6,000 to 1,700 or 2,200 -- called for in the Treaty of Moscow. "A more robust replacement warhead from a reliability standpoint will provide the stockpile hedge that is currently provided by retaining thousands of unnecessary warheads," Hobson said.

Norman Einstein
01-30-2010, 07:52 PM
I was not referring to conventional bunker busters that were used in the first gulf war. I was referring to the attempt to adapt that technology to outfit with nuclear warheads, and yes, Bush did have something to do with that.

I've never heard of any attempts to make nuclear bunker busters. All things considered the failure of the kinetic energy busters to get Saddam might make them more useful.

I doubt they would have ever been developed, an air blast nuke would most likely do all the damage ever needed, especially if you throw out 100 of them in the area.

banyon
01-30-2010, 09:48 PM
I've never heard of any attempts to make nuclear bunker busters. All things considered the failure of the kinetic energy busters to get Saddam might make them more useful.

I doubt they would have ever been developed, an air blast nuke would most likely do all the damage ever needed, especially if you throw out 100 of them in the area.

I know you hadn't heard of it, that's why I posted the article. Did you just completely ignore the fact that money was *in fact* used to r&d this program, just like I said?

Norman Einstein
01-30-2010, 10:56 PM
I know you hadn't heard of it, that's why I posted the article. Did you just completely ignore the fact that money was *in fact* used to r&d this program, just like I said?

Don't really care if they did R&D. If you don't do R&D you don't come up with workable concepts for future weapons. I'm one of those that thinks we need to be prepared for any contingency.

banyon
01-31-2010, 09:35 AM
Don't really care if they did R&D. If you don't do R&D you don't come up with workable concepts for future weapons. I'm one of those that thinks we need to be prepared for any contingency.

Great. So, now that you're aware of it, you support W's efforts to develop bunker-busting nuclear weapons at the expense of the anti-proliferation budget., which is pretty much what I mentioned in my first post.

Norman Einstein
01-31-2010, 09:42 AM
Great. So, now that you're aware of it, you support W's efforts to develop bunker-busting nuclear weapons at the expense of the anti-proliferation budget., which is pretty much what I mentioned in my first post.

It looks like you've already read into it what you want to. Who am I to disagree with your position?

Have a good day.