Holy SHIT! Here's an Image of the 1st Millisecond of a Nuclear Explosion

[Turborama]

Last edited Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:42 AM - Edit history (1)

From I fucking love science: https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=498343196853363&id=367116489976035&set=a.456449604376056.98921.367116489976035&relevant_count=1&refid=20&_ft_=fbid.498498290171187

Cutting the U.S. nuclear arsenal can help cut the deficit
By Walter Pincus,  

Published: NOVEMBER 12, 9:59 PM ET
   
One way President Obama could help reduce the deficit is to trim funds planned for the next 10 years for building, maintaining and operating the U.S. nuclear weapons program.

That could save up to $100 billion over that period. Would it solve our deficit problem? No, but it would help. Such savings add up.

More than three years ago in Prague, Obama said that he wanted “to put an end to Cold War thinking . . . (and) reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy.” He and Russian President Vladimir Putin took a first step when they signed the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty on April 8, 2010, in Prague. The Senate approved it that December.

It called for reducing, by 2018, the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, and the number of deployed and non-deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and bombers to 800. It did not limit the number of non-deployed nuclear warheads or bombs; the United States has more than 2,500. Nor did it deal with shorter-range tactical nuclear weapons or cruise missiles.

More: http://washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cutting-the-us-nuclear-arsenal-can-help-cut-the-deficit/2012/11/12/350ddd1e-2ac2-11e2-b4e0-346287b7e56c_story.html

Something I think we can all get behind putting pressure on making this part of President Obama's legacy...

[Egalitarian Thug]

1. K&R Awesome picture and a very good start on some actual change. n/t

[aristocles]

2. Now, I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. n/t

[AsahinaKimi]

3. video

[Turborama]

5. Incredible

Wow, 10,000,000 pictures a second.

Thanks for sharing.

[1-Old-Man]

4. Melting down the arms doesn't do a thing if you keep the army.

The cost of maintaining our nuclear arsenal is not going to go away nor are the legacy costs of production. We build dam few new weapons, which is well and good, and money's spend on dismantling old ones is not in dispute. So where is all this savings to come from? Also, just because you might do away with many of the weapons doesn't mean that their successors will cost less nor does it address the base problem which is the size of the military, not how we arm them.

[Turborama]

6. "Where is all this savings to come from? "

Doing away with land based ICBMs, as suggested by the author, will eliminate the cost of maintaining/updating that portion of our nuclear arsenal.