By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Nobel Peace Prize-winner Obama spending more on nuclear weapons than Bush

I know this is the second wtf thread I've posted about Obama recently, but this one is just... (and this comes from someone who was in favor of Obama when he was campaigning).

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

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’.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Around the Network

Well don't worry:
1990 president of Soviet Union receives Nobel prize
1991 Soviet union falls
2009 president of USA receives Nobel prize
2010 ...

:D



PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB

*Urgh* Can you please find a source that isn't the Daily Mail please? You never see the full picture with the Daily mail.

Anyway, regardless of that, yes he has increased the nuclear weapons budget. However, I have yet to read anywhere that he is actually planning to significantly increase the USA's nuclear stockpiles (although I have heard conjecture). Everywhere says he plans to sustain them and spend the money on new facilities (such as scientists and equipment). On top of that the nuclear capabilities of the USA far outwieghs the nuclear capabilities of any other country, so why would he need more?

Forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical, but I don't think this is a plan to increase the numbers, just a way to more safely sustain them.

Either way, it still goes against his initial promise of reducing nuclear stockpiles.



All I read was, "we're going to keep blaming Bush for our problems."



Check out my band, (the) Fracture Suit!!

http://www.myspace.com/fracturesuit

 

 

 

Have you been enslaved?

So the optimistic view is that Obama is just making the existing nuclear weapons safer than they used to be?

If that's true, what does that say about Bush... he was not spending enough to ensure the safety of nuclear weapons? That's a pretty big accusation.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Around the Network

Uhm.. isn't the money used to prevent the old stockpile from rotting away and become dangerous, to train people who will know what they do, and prevent evil people to get them? Jack Bauer can't save america EVERY day...



 

Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!) 

NJ5 said:
So the optimistic view is that Obama is just making the existing nuclear weapons safer than they used to be?

If that's true, what does that say about Bush... he was not spending enough to ensure the safety of nuclear weapons? That's a pretty big accusation.

I refer you to Nikkom's post above. He summed it up pretty well. It wasn't optimism, it was just what I got from the article. If I read "Obama buys new nukes" I would have said something about that.



@NJ5. Nuclear weapons aren't secure/not secure. If Highway's conjecture is correct they will merely be going from very secure to even more very secure.

 

Edit: And I severely severely doubt that any money will be spent on getting new weapons. Both Russia and the USA are actually pretty desperate to reduce their stocks from Cold War level, they just don't want to do it before each other. That's why there is guaranteed to be another treaty on nuclear weapons reduction within a couple of years.



Could somebody please explain to me what the point of this nuke stockpiling is? Because I genuinely don't understand. If you're going to nuke North Korea, you don't need 5500 warheads. If you're going to nuke North Korea, and the entire Middle East, you don't need 5500 warheads. If you're going to carpet nuke Asia, you might need 5500 warheads.

Which would suggest that Mr. Peace Prize Winner wants to carpet nuke Asia. I highly doubt that.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Kantor said:
Could somebody please explain to me what the point of this nuke stockpiling is? Because I genuinely don't understand. If you're going to nuke North Korea, you don't need 5500 warheads. If you're going to nuke North Korea, and the entire Middle East, you don't need 5500 warheads. If you're going to carpet nuke Asia, you might need 5500 warheads.

Which would suggest that Mr. Peace Prize Winner wants to carpet nuke Asia. I highly doubt that.

From what I gather it was essentially a penis contest during the Cold War.

 

"Look how big my stockpile is USSR, it's so much bigger than yours"