"My point was (in case you don't have a 5th grader around to explain it to you) how can you reduce wasteful military spending and stop global nuclear proliferation by spending more?
I think that's a fair question, maybe you can avoid it with cute witicisms but the question does remain and is legit.
Waiting for someone to splain......."
He was splainin' how you can have it BOTH ways??
I missed it.
My bad....course mebbe I just ain't smart enough!!??!!??
Do the words, "Read my lips, no new taxes." ring a bell?
....and reality came to bear.
How about, a banner proclaiming "Mission accomplished."
....we're still there.
Or, "we will be greeted as liberators."
....that's worked out well!
BTW you're "smart enough". Ya gonna answer Joe's question? Got an alternative?
Yer fren' JD
PS I agree completely with Joe S.'s assessment. I train with people from both national labs, and what I hear is that we are not keeping up with the other members of the nuclear club. You do agree in a stong deterrent position, do you not?
Maybe, the premise of your question is that money spent to keep the NUCLEAR WEAPON STOCKPILE safe, secure, and reliable amounts to "wasteful military spending." If that is correct, your assessment doesn't seem to be accurate to me. Lacking any other viable plan, or a plan put forth by you, there really isn't an alternative on the table that I can see.
Try this again:
We have X nukes in the stockpile...it takes x3 money to support the stockplie. It stands to reason that x3 + Y money is going to be required to ensure the safety, security, reliability, and provide for the research and development to improve the stockpile while other weapons in the stockpile are being drawndown. The R&D would be for better, more efficient weapons AND cheaper, easier ways to dismantle and dispose of the old weapons. The outyear prospect is that we will have X-A nukes in the stockpile that will be safe, secure, and reliable into the future at a cost of x1 money.
The key to this is spending the money (more money) now so that in the outyears there are fewer weapons (and associated infrastructure to support those weapons) in the stockpile that can then be maintained and secured longer for less cost.
Once this part of the answer is understood, the implications for nuclear non-proliferation and counterterrorism are clear, I think.
Just 'Splaining Regards,
I don't really believe that Russia & China any longer really want to drop a nuke on the rest of the world ... they've got enough problems already feeding and housing their population; and the West provides the markets to sell their goods to finance the firrst two. Not really sure that North Korea is into self-immolation either in spite of sabre-rattling. When will somebody sit at a summit conference and mention that?
OTOH, there are those wackos, as we've seen, who believe that suicide is a valid end to knocking off those who disagree with your philosphy. The leaders of those people will probably try to find themselves a safe hole to hide in even as they send their underlings to self-destruct.
So, like how many nuclear warheads do we really need? If the "good guys" and the "bad guys" each had 50, that should be quite enough to reduce global civilization to a cinder or an unlivable wasteland. In fact, if both siides get off 10, the other 80 are probably a non-issue. If the "believers" wipe all infidels off the earth, they might just take all the "believers" with them. Who's left to spread Allah's message? Maybe they haven't taken their thinking that far?
The wackos are as great a danger to China, Russia, North Korea, etc. as they are to the U.S. The U.S. is likely thei wackos primary target (for now) since it is the most visible symbol of power in the world. With the U.S. out of the picture, the rest would fall like dominoes.