General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPresident Obama is massively expanding U.S. Nuclear Weapons: (price tag: 1 trillion bucks)
U.S. Ramping Up Major Renewal in Nuclear Arms
KANSAS CITY, Mo. A sprawling new plant here in a former soybean field makes the mechanical guts of Americas atomic warheads. Bigger than the Pentagon, full of futuristic gear and thousands of workers, the plant, dedicated last month, modernizes the aging weapons that the United States can fire from missiles, bombers and submarines.
It is part of a nationwide wave of atomic revitalization that includes plans for a new generation of weapon carriers. A recent federal study put the collective price tag, over the next three decades, at up to a trillion dollars.
This expansion comes under a president who campaigned for a nuclear-free world and made disarmament a main goal of American defense policy. The original idea was that modest rebuilding of the nations crumbling nuclear complex would speed arms refurbishment, raising confidence in the arsenals reliability and paving the way for new treaties that would significantly cut the number of warheads.
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.
<snip>
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/us/us-ramping-up-major-renewal-in-nuclear-arms.html
The nobel peace prize winning president at work. gee, thanks Mr. President.
cali
(114,904 posts)President Obama has done quite a few things I profoundly disagree with, but this is just unfathomable to me. As with too many other issues, President Obama's rhetoric is miles from his actions.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)We are in that deeply disturbing phase of waking up to realize what we really face.
Totalitarianism, American Style
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025573232
leftstreet
(36,109 posts)Education, infrastructure rebuilding...
Hope! Change!
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)Response to cali (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)So, I guess that's your call.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)A trillion here and a trillion there
Everywhere a trillion
except for the 99%, many stuck with underwater homes because the bankers needed bailouts.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)SOCIAL SECURITY IS GOING TO GO BANKRUPT.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)He has been known to stage press events such as visiting Russia to say that he is all about limiting nukes. Then to make up for that behavior he immediately gifts the nuclear warhead people with some new tax payer funded program, the second he is back on American soil.
Of course,the fact that Putin is destroying the Ukraine (As our media explains the matter) and also add in how the raging insanity of the New Hitlerian Movement of ISIS is devouring countries in the Middle East -- both of these matters now give him cover to be all about nukes.
I mean how can we fight the coming wars if we don't add in some new nukes?
Richard D
(8,754 posts)WTF? World poverty could be eliminated with this. Global warming could be reversed. Just what the F is he thinking?
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)lark
(23,108 posts)"Money, money, money, money" as he continues to give more to the MIC and does nothing for the 99%.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)*fill in your favorite bad guy of the moment.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)zero, nada.
Another point, why is OK that we possess them and Iran can't?
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Because they are crazy Musilms who will drop a nuke in a second. While we are the good guys, we only go to war as a last resort. We never go where we aren't wanted, we are always ready to lend a hand, and we would never allow a crazy asshole into the Presidency.
Oh wait...
drynberg
(1,648 posts)uppityperson
(115,677 posts)redruddyred
(1,615 posts)Initech
(100,081 posts)CentralMass
(15,265 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)It was the carrot he threw to the hawks, along with the fact that some of these modernization expenses will be necessary for the disarmament process anyways.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)I have my gripes with the nsa, but at least intelligence is a not-stupid way to wage a "war on terror".
perhpas he thinks we're heading towards cold war part deux.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Question: when was this spending passed, as a rider to what other legislation? It's even in the article.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)seriously, spending money on nuclear weapons as part of a disarmament treaty?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Yes, it is. Always has been.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)but perhaps I am young and naive.
perhaps we are also thinking of different synonyms.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)This was the cost of that. I'm giving up on DU at this point...
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)didn't you say this wasn't the first time?
Initech
(100,081 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But they don't take notice when he walks a different walk.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)MAD.
Something you should have learned about in school.
cali
(114,904 posts)MAD was crazy then and it's even crazier now. you can't think of better ways to spend a trillion? Of course not, if the President is for it- no matter what it is- you're for it.
extreme partisanship is not a good thing.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)I'm gonna be perpetually fucking outraged about it.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)The same Jonathan Turley who called for the impeachment of Obama and Clinton.
Why should I take you seriously?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)That's all you've got?
Seriously?
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)I think my response to those who think this (and other) policies of Obama's are a-okay is...SO IF BUSH PROPOSED IT, YOU'D THINK IT WOULD BE OKAY, RIGHT? invariably, the honest answer is "no".
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)that the BOG in general, and that one in particular, can't get on board with..as long as Obama said so. The actual policy simply doesn't matter to them.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Yeah, right.
I taut I taw a Pooty Poot
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)If Russia or any country does hit us or our allies with nukes, we could strike back with cupcakes.
That'll learn 'em.
cali
(114,904 posts)you do realize we have a well maintained nuclear arsenal? guess not.
Perhaps you missed this 60 minutes report:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/04/28/huge_floppy_disks_and_other_old_tech_is_common_at_air_force_nuclear_missile.html
It appears you don't really follow this issue and instead prefer to engage in a game of perpetual outrage. Otherwise, you would know our nuclear arsenal is outdated.
Knowledge is important.
cali
(114,904 posts)has anything to do with spending a trillion? Unbelievable.
from the link, dear cali-dem:
the missiles have been upgraded numerous times to make them safer and more reliable, the bases themselves haven't changed much.
and:
The Air Force is planning to spend $19 million on launch control center improvements in 2014, and is seeking $600 million for additional upgrades next year.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)They're upgrading all systems, the 60 minutes report is just an example of how the nuclear wing of our armed forces rely on outdated cold war technology.
You said we had a well-maintained arsenal, but that just isn't the case. Apparently you also missed this report from John Oliver:
Good video also.
http://www.cnet.com/news/john-oliver-why-do-floppy-disks-control-nuclear-weapons/
It's clear I'm having an argument with someone who really has no clue about the subject.
cali
(114,904 posts)who are very well versed in the subject do not agree with this. Read the article.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)It appears you're the one who had no clue that our nuclear weapons systems were so outdated.
It's an indication that you'd rather engage in perpetual outrage than look at the facts. The world is a messy place. Nuclear weapons are here to stay and no major country is going to unilaterally disarm. If you're going to maintain these weapons, it's important that the delivery systems are modern and maintained.
This is the world we live in thanks to FDR and others who helped to usher in the nuclear age.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Oh, I hear 60 minutes now.......
Drum drum drumbeat for more war
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Anger at the modernization and at the same time claiming she isn't for disarmament. Old weapons degrade, particularly nuclear ones.
Either you disarm or your modernize. There is no third choice.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)It is part of a nationwide wave of atomic revitalization that includes plans for a new generation of weapon carriers. A recent federal study put the collective price tag, over the next three decades, at up to a trillion dollars.
Isn't that what this 30 year plan does ... maintain the arsenal? Not expand the arsenal, as the OP title indicates.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Why not just spend all our money on nukes. After all we need to be able to kill all the boogeymen so scardey cats like you can sleep at night.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)What would be the point of striking back with nukes. It would just drive humanity further into the dark ages.
Using nuclear weapons is insane, more like committing mutual suicide than a weapon.
No country or entity has the right to unleash that kind of terror on our planet.
There is no right or wrong here, just wrong.
Oh, and if we did disarm unilaterally, we could challenge other nations to do the same.
progressoid
(49,991 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)Naturally, too much money is to be made in nukes, so not likely to happen.
CrispyQ
(36,478 posts)You think the correct response to a nuke hit is to fire back with more nukes?
Too bad the US doesn't consider global climate change as big a threat as the Russians with their bombs. We could set an example, challenge the rest of the world, but no, we cling to the insane for-profit model as we ruin our ecosystem and our lives.
Humanity seems determined to return to the dark ages.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)And once you understand where you would use one, there are either other weapons that do a better job (Smart bombs can do damage with minimal killing of people) or the cost is just not worth it (US Nuclear weapons stock piles reflected the fact no one thought the US could conquer Russia and change its Government in the post WWII era, thus destroying Russia became an option, i.e. destroy what you can NOT control). Today, the US can still destroy Russia, but the real question is WHY? i.e. Russia is NOT the Soviet Union with its policy of spreading Communism. Thus it is possible to restrict Russia to its own neighbors and once you decide on that policy, nuclear weapons to destroy Russia no longer makes sense (it will also destroy Russian Oil and Natural Gas Supplies, which Europe, China and even Japan are becoming more and more dependent on).
Thus the US could give up its Nuclear Weapons, all of them and still be the most powerful country in the world. That Russia would still have Nuclear weapons would be unimportant, who would Putin use them on? The answer would be no one (Russia has says it will use Nuclear Weapons if Smart bombs are used against it, but cutting off oil and Natural Gas is a much more powerful "weapon" in such a situation thus even the Russia retaining Nulcear Weapons appear to be more to do with domestic Politics then any real military need for such weapons).
China has only 500 nuclear weapons, and thinks that is enough. China has no missile that can reach the US, and again seems to NOT to desire to obtain any. The reason for this is simple, China is the industrial giant in today's world that NO ONE wants to destroy, so nuclear weapons will NOT be used against China for where else where we get things made? China does not see any use for Nuclear Weapons, except to chase the US Fleet from its coasts (any that may be easier and cheaper to do with the new generations of Smart Anti Ship Missiles).
Thus the US is facing no threat where Nuclear weapons would come into play. Even if the US goes to war with Iran, the US will NOT use Nuclear Weapons, for such weapons will destroy the oil fields which would be the object of any US attack on Iran. Get rid of them.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Congratulations. You appear to be the only person with the special characteristics required to defend the building of new nuclear weapons.
Your ideas are just the bestest.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)How many "new nuclear weapons" are being built?
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)of taxpayer money and we get no say in the matter. As a matter of fact, we vote them in and that's the excuse they'll use for spending on war, "You voted for us, so get used to it."
Fuck it! Just fuck it! I'm so fed up with this never ending bullshit!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama won! Things will change now. Boy oh boy! Hey, what's Obama doing? Why didn't he go after bush and cheney.
Oh, he's playing 10th dimensional chess, something you don't understand.
Wow! He must be some chess player. He throwing money at wall street and he's not prosecuting their law breakers. He's willing to sacrifice his constituents to the trade gods with TPP. Using drones to kill US citizens without due process. A shitload of other things and now spending a trillion on renewing nukes. Wow! I hope he's better than Bobby Fischer.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)More nukes for the most heavily armed military force in history.
Even if I believed bombing Iran were a good idea, it would still be an inadequate answer to "why do we need that?"
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts). . .
Republicans objected to the treaty unless the president agreed to an aggressive rehabilitation of American nuclear forces and manufacturing sites. Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, led the opposition. He likened the bomb complex to a rundown garage a description some in the administration considered accurate.
Under fire, the administration promised to add $14 billion over a decade for atomic renovations. Then Senator Kyl refused to conclude a deal.
Facing the possible defeat of his first major treaty, Mr. Obama and the floor manager for the effort, Senator John Kerry, now the secretary of state, set up a war room and made deals to widen Republican support. In late December, the five-week campaign paid off, although the 71-to-26 vote represented the smallest margin ever for the ratification of a nuclear pact between Washington and Moscow.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/us/us-ramping-up-major-renewal-in-nuclear-arms.html?_r=0
The Senate Democrats were as much to blame: in return for cutting arms, those in states with atomic plants pushed for this refurbishing money that would bring dollars and jobs to their states.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I don't know why DU has such a short memory. This was barely 4 years ago.
valerief
(53,235 posts)hardcover
(255 posts)Do you really believe the US would not be attacked if it rendered itself defenseless?
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)we have a large and well maintained nuclear arsenal as is.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)...
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Its deplorable, Representative Chuck Fleischmann, Republican of Tennessee, said at an April hearing. Equipment, he added, breaks down on a daily basis.
In some ways, the challenge is similar to what Detroits auto industry faces: Does it make sense to pour money into old structures or build new ones that are more secure, are fully computerized and adhere to modern environmental standards?
Nuclear weapons have a lifespan like anything else. I think I'd prefer them not to be maintained in facilities so decrepit that they are literally falling apart. Just exactly where I'd not like to see radioactive materials spread around.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)The same "reality" that wrecked our economy and made us spend trillions on an illegal war. I thought your type was extinct?
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)This:
United States: 4,804 nuclear warheads as of September 2013 [2], including tactical, strategic, and nondeployed weapons. According to the latest official New START declaration, the United States has1,585 strategic nuclear warheads deployed on 778 ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers [1]. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that the United States' nondeployed strategic arsenal is approximately 2,800 warheads and the U.S. tactical nuclear arsenal numbers 500 warheads. Additional warheads are retired and await dismantlement.
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat
Maybe you can explain to me how having nearly 5000 Nuclear warheads equals "Disarming and singing Kumbaya?
hardcover
(255 posts)WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)If we eliminated them we would not be defenseless, far from it.
hardcover
(255 posts)WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)We already have more than enough non nuclear weapons for a strong deterrent.
Nuclear weapons must never be used again and all of them need to be destroyed.
They have been held over our heads for far to long.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)We are perpetually "out of money" except when it comes to massive military projects, corporate subsidies, and gifts to the finance sector.
Response to BlindTiresias (Reply #33)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)All this talk about incrementalism and how democracy is inherently "slow going" and then these massively expensive gifts to the rich get rolled out overnight. It is a sick joke.
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)eggplant
(3,911 posts)I, for one, would love to see all of our warheads beaten into plowshares (although then we'd probably end up giving away weaponized plowshares to local police and school districts) but I don't read this as some sort of escalation.
We have existing treaties in place which limit how many weapons we have. But these things don't last forever -- they have a limited shelf life. We have to do something with them, and bringing them up to modern technology standards is a good thing. Old, cranky nukes are WAY more dangerous than shiny, new ones.
Plus, that's a lot of technology jobs.
I see this announcement as having zero negative impact on future disarmament.
cali
(114,904 posts)not a drop in the bucket- not at a time when we don't have the funds for frickin' basic infrastructure needs, not at a time when we're cutting the social safety net.
fail.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)His original post's math was wrong.
eggplant
(3,911 posts)The math doesn't change my opinion of whether it is a good idea.
cali
(114,904 posts)so you don't consider 33 billion a year a substantial amount either.
figures.
eggplant
(3,911 posts)Your OP expressed your opinion, my reply expressed mine.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)Of the rest of the opinions of the political orthodoxy regarding fiscal affairs it probably should.
cali
(114,904 posts)by the enormity, I don't even bother checking anyone's math.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)The political orthodoxy insist we just "don't have the money" for anything when it comes to the peole and insist on gutting every element of governmental redistribution to the people, and then manage to roll out 33 billion a year projects and give massive tax breaks, subsidies, and outright bailouts to the capital class essentially overnight and without any of the hand wringing you see about exremely modest measures to improve peoples lives or even treat them as an equal citizen. The republic is a full on sick joke at this point.
eggplant
(3,911 posts)GOTV!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)it'll dull your Outrage Gene.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And this was the 30 pieces of silver that took: spending this money to modernize the remaining arsenal.
eggplant
(3,911 posts)But, governing is hard!
Paper Roses
(7,473 posts)I've been on the fence for a while now. I just fell off, no support left.
---not that whatever I think matters---this government does what it wants.
In my ripe old age, you'd think I'd realize that the plight of the American people is of little concern to the big MIC.
Thanks Washington for another of your wonderful programs. Meanwhile, how about you consider saving the funds for this project and putting those dollars to work here on things other than guns and bombs?
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)I think we are in big big trouble.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)the more certain I am that Bernie Sanders is our last non-violent hope.
I know that Elizabeth Warren is not running but if she were on that ticket, I don't think there would be any stopping them.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Without commenting on right or wrong by Obama, let us not forget that for several years now the republican party has been giving aid and comfort to the enemy, Putin.
They have emboldened him to do any number of things AGAINST USA...
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Efilroft Sul
(3,579 posts)War pigs, every last one of them. The military-industrial complex just has to have their pooooh-ny.
locks
(2,012 posts)to tell other nations they can't build nuclear bombs while we ramp up our nuclear warheads. There are an awful lot of us who are sickened by this. Do you think Obama would listen if we all called or wrote the White House on a certain day?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Really?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)What specifically different should he have done?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Name another way START could have been ratified.
Anything.
Anything.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)The onus is on you to show how START depends on this action. That was your claim.
Ha. OK, I see you don't actually care about this. Later!
(Hint: the link is even mentioned in the article.)
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Why do you make these claims if you can't back them up?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If it wasn't clear I'll make it clear again:
This appropriation was negotiated by the Senate as part of the ratification of START.
Got it?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)You did not show how START was dependent on this new action, nor did you show that the President had no other choices.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Later. I see you don't actually care.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)From your own summary:
So if your argument is so good, why do you have to lie in your title by claiming it's a massive expansion of nuclear weapons?
Do we have a better place to spend that money? Yes. But make that argument on its merits instead of lying about what's going on.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Or Lieberman's. Or all the hippies who didn't vote in 2010.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The cost of getting that through the Senate was spending this on the remaining arsenal. It's funny how often posts intended as sarcasm are more or less correct.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Do you have anything to add about the process by which START was passed through the Senate, which included the authorization for this spending?
JEB
(4,748 posts)Pretty soon you're talking real money. How about we educate our children and fix some bridges and prosecute some war criminals. Fuck this bullshit.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Plus, uh, ISISqaeda or something.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Did people think Congress was going to forget it passed this?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Oh well, at least we know not to pay much attention to what they say during the campaign anymore.
That makes it harder on the next candidate.
But for the people, it is good to know where we stand so we can make more wise decisions in the future.
Oh, and even if she is the nominee, I will not support Hillary.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)defacto7
(13,485 posts)Kill the living and save the buildings.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)loudsue
(14,087 posts)Clinton, Obama, Schumer, Feinstein, even the venerable John Conyers has been informally silenced.
Every official now does the biddings of their pay masters. It's that or get Kennedied.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)What a con job.
Lenomsky
(340 posts)Pay down some US debt FFS!
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)Norway be indicted for giving Obama the peace prize.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)The Soviet went bankrupt during the last cold war. It could be that Pooty poot is bluffing us into another arms race in hopes that we are dumb enough to "take the bait". In that case, there is as slim possibility that Obama if faking the nuclear upgrade to counter Putin's moves. But, most likely, Obama is just being dumb (again). If the upgrade is real, our only hope is to put a strong, smart and courageous Democrat in office who can scrap the upgrade plan.
(My spell check doesn't work.)
progressoid
(49,991 posts)Mutually assured destruction and trillions of dollars down the drain has kept Murica safe from the Godless Commies for decades.
If we let up, it will be Red Dawn before you know it.
WOLVERINES!!
just in case...
tclambert
(11,087 posts)And then autonomous nuclear drones. And then artificially intelligent computers to decide when to use the nuclear drones. And then we need to develop anti-robot weapons to fight the robots that are trying to wipe us out.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)under the ACA. but at least some people are getting HC from that.
HoosierCowboy
(561 posts)is not much of a deterrent. How long have the Minutemen III been sitting in their silos waiting for an order that will never come? The Russians and Chinese now have modernized their forces and our stuff is just clunky.
It's a waste, but thinking might change along with advances in technology. That might make the nuclear shell game a little safer to play.
FlatStanley
(327 posts)He's a thinker.
Chess.
Racism.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)What the hell are we going to do with them? I understand the concept of mutually assured destruction - but we are already capable of fulfilling our part of the deal there. Modernizing these weapons is apparently going to cost an absolutely insane amount of money... for weapons that we all hope we'll never use. That, almost certainly, will never BE used. In a decade or two we will have to upgrade the upgrades, or upgrade the new weapons and carriers being made. That, or let them rot. There will always be a seemingly logical argument in favor of this kind of spending and weaponry... but it becomes ultimately illogical and even somewhat foolish when you consider two simple things.
1. If we use them, it could damn well trigger the end of the world.
2. We probably aren't going to use them unless we get a President who is eager for the end of days.
So we spend a fortune, more than a fortune, on all of this shit that will never be used, that, to even use, would be an act of insanity.
If anyone had asked me, I would say don't do it. I would say spend the bare minimum in money and in effort to keep the weapons usable - even that I hesitate over.... Beyond that... do we really need more world destroying weapons? Just because the Russians have them? They nuke us, we nuke them back! Everyone wins... or, uh... well, thousands and thousands of people die, then millions more freeze to death in nuclear winter. That's on the optimistic side.
A trillion dollars... enough money to implement a single payer health care system and insure everyone in America. Enough money to buy or build everyone a home. Enough money to feed everyone in America. Enough money to do so many great things... yet, we spend it on this insanity.
Did the events in Fukushima not teach us anything? What happens when a tornado hits a nuclear power plant? What happens when a massive earthquake shatters the damn thing? What about when so much nuclear waste is swallowed up by the ocean? How many nuclear fuel rods would it take to break the whole damn world?
This is indeed MAD. Through mutually assured destruction, we are almost inevitably assuring our own future destruction - possibly even that of the whole world. There are times when I wish I wasn't a human being. How can we even conceive of this mad shit?
locks
(2,012 posts)How can we even conceive of this MAD shit? There was a time I believed that we could and would learn but that time has passed.
Veganhealedme
(137 posts)'nucular'.
, indeed.