FuturePAF
Think Tank Analyst
- Dec 17, 2014
- 12,387
- 11,852
- Country of Origin
- Country of Residence
The problem is that, when we need them, we won’t have enough to deter attempts to snatch them or destroy them.I used to get people asking for money for Charities and I would say it is the governments responsibility to support its people from poverty and instead of spending billions on Nuke subs they should spend it on welfare, but then I would get the same old worn argument about deterrence. To the deterrence argument I would say if the weapon is not going to be used then it is a waste of money and if it is used then it was not a deterrence. As usual I would get a pause of contemplation from them and then a nod of agreement. Irresponsible white folks are putting the world at peril for their moment of greed and to hell with everyone else attitude. They are forcing more and more countries to go nuclear bringing the world closer to Armageddon day by day.
I would agree on most military spending, but like you said, irresponsible people are forcing the world to go nuclear, so it forces us to have a decent amount to maintain a credible deterrence.
It’s not even about building new infrastructure, but it seems the rate of production has declined, due to political reasons, if the estimates of current fissile estimates are accurate.
On the old forum, about 10 years ago, I estimated the fissile material should be enough for 200 bombs by 2020, but current estimates put it at 170. If we had kept pace we would be at 400 by 2030 and 600 by 2040 and 800 by 2050, with just the current infrastructure.
Last edited: