Babylon The Great Tries To Buy Her Way Out Of THE END

Irresponsible spending on nuclear arsenal

Terrence Clark, M.D.Lewis Patrie, M.D.Robert Howarth, M.S.E.

3:10 p.m. EST December 19, 2014

Do you know that our U.S. government is planning to tax us for about $1 trillion over the next 30 years to produce 80 new nuclear bombs each year? A September 2014 New York Times article reported our president “laid out his atomic refurbishment plans, which the Congressional Budget Office now estimates will cost $355 billion over the next decade. But that is just the start. The price tag will soar after 10 years as missiles, bombers and submarines made in the last century reach the end of their useful lives and replacements are built … It estimated the total cost of the nuclear enterprise over the next three decades at roughly $900 billion to $1.1 trillion.”

The U.S. has 1,500 nuclear missiles on ready alert and another 3,400 in reserve storage. These weapons are deemed usable and reliable by government and private experts for the next 50 to 100 years to constitute deterrence against attack by a hostile nuclear power.

Physicians for Social Responsibility has projected the likely scenario of the horrendous effects of a nuclear war that launched less than a hundred nuclear weapons. There would be thousands of immediate deaths from blast, heat approaching the temperature of the sun, and radiation. Then for several years the sun’s rays would not warm earth due to suspended soot. This would cause a nuclear winter over much of earth. Crops would fail. There would be mass starvation and it is estimated that there would be over a billion deaths.

So why produce more such weapons of death and destruction?

The U.S. doesn’t need more nuclear deterrence — we already have a surplus, with ever-increasing costs to maintain these weapons responsibly. This is partly driven by pork barrel subsidization or “corporate welfare” to the weapons contractors and arms merchants that lobby heavily and are rewarded handsomely. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel recently requested several billion dollars to upgrade the nuclear weapons management program which is in a state of decay. Colin Powell has stated that nuclear weapons are useless and they should never be used because of the devastation to the planet and all of life.

Six years ago, former Secretaries of State Schultz and Kissinger, former Defense Secretary Perry, and former Senate Armed Services Chair Nunn advocated for a series of action steps to reduce the danger of nuclear catastrophe, including substantial negotiated reductions in the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. It is of utmost importance that our two nations work to restore relationships which have soured over recent years. This has not only led to a breakdown of diplomatic relations between our countries, but has increased the danger of conflict. It is essential that we return to the bargaining table for the sake of humankind.

In the early months of 2015 the new Congress will be asked to authorize billions of dollars for nuclear bomb production as part of the proposed near trillion dollar nuclear weapons program over the next 30 years. If this is approved, will our taxes be increased? That’s not something the new Congress would embrace — more likely funds would be carved out of social programs, education, healthcare and Social Security. Remember, there’s no free money and the taxpayer, the people, must pay.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, in a Dec. 3, 2014 Washington Post article, flatly stated that nuclear weapons are a financial burden and a threat to global security. She added that “the current level of spending on nuclear weapons is unnecessary and unsustainable” and “we are holding far more nuclear weapons than are necessary, and the cost is undermining other national security priorities”.
Move to contact your Congressional representatives, House and Senate — and tell them not to approve more money for more nuclear weapons that we don’t need. We citizens must speak up or pay up.

Go to www.house.gov for House representatives, http://senate.gov for senators’ contact information.
Terrence Clark, M.D., Lewis Patrie, M.D. and Robert Howarth, M.S.E., are members of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

‘Anti-nuclear’ Obama plans to spend $1 trillion on nukes

Published time: September 22, 2014 16:25

RT

US Intercontinental Ballistic Nuclear Missile

Reuters

Despite campaigning on a platform that endorsed having “a nuclear-free world” in the not so distant future, United States President Barack Obama is overseeing an administration that’s aim has taken another path, the New York Times reported this week.
On Sunday, journalists William Broad and David Sanger wrote for the Times that a half-decade of “political deals and geopolitical crises” have thrown a wrench in the works of Pres. Obama’s pre-White House plans, as a result eviscerating his previously stated intentions of putting America’s — and ideally the world’s — nuclear programs on ice.
According to the Times report, an effort to ensure that the antiquated nuclear arsenal being held by the US remains secure has since expanded to the point that upwards of $1 trillion dollars is now expected to be spent on various realms of the project during the next three decades, the likes of which are likely to keep the trove of American nukes intact and do little to discourage other nations from doing differently.
“The original idea was that modest rebuilding of the nation’s crumbling nuclear complex would speed arms refurbishment, raising confidence in the arsenal’s reliability and paving the way for new treaties that would significantly cut the number of warheads,” the journalists wrote. “Instead, because of political deals and geopolitical crises, the Obama administration is engaging in extensive atomic rebuilding while getting only modest arms reductions in return.”
Shortly after he first entered the oval office in early 2009, the Nobel Peace Prize commission awarded Pres. Obama with its highest award for, among other factors, taking a strong stance against international nuclear procurement.
“I’m not naïve,” Obama said that year. “This goal will not be reached quickly — perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence.”
After speaking with analysts, however, the Times journalists — both Pulitzer winners in their own right — now raise doubts that the commander-in-chief’s campaign goals will come to fruition anytime soon.
“With Russia on the warpath, China pressing its own territorial claims and Pakistan expanding its arsenal, the overall chances for Mr. Obama’s legacy of disarmament look increasingly dim, analysts say,” they wrote. “Congress has expressed less interest in atomic reductions than looking tough in Washington’s escalating confrontation with Moscow.”
Indeed, international disputes have without a doubt raised concerns in recent years over the nuclear programs of other nations. The Washington Post reported this week that Pakistan is working towards achieving the capability to launch sea-based, short-range nuclear arms, and concurrently the Kremlin confirmed that Russia is set to renew the country’s strategic nuclear forces by 100 percent, not 70 percent as previously announced.
As those countries ramp up their nuclear programs on their own, the Times report cites a recent study from the Washington, DC-based Government Accountability Office to show that the US is making more than just a minor investment with regards to America’s nukes. According to that report, 21 major upgrades to nuclear facilities have already been approved, yet in the five years since Obama took office, “the modernization push” to upgrade the nukes has been “poorly managed and financially unaccountable.”
“It estimated the total cost of the nuclear enterprise over the next three decades at roughly $900 billion to $1.1 trillion,” the journalists noted. “Policy makers, the [GAO] report said, ‘are only now beginning to appreciate the full scope of these procurement costs.’”