to revitalize the nuclear arms industry, including the mining companies, aerospace and weapons systems outfits. Being modern no doubt some military services contracting firms would be hiring as well. Lots of boondoggle money going there I think.
They see that we're unlikely to build new reactors for all the obvious reasons. There are pragmatic reasons to update a portion of the nukes we have kept due to the age of the devices. Practically its a weapon we can't use even once or on a small scale. But the idea that we don't have any at all scares some people and that perception has consequences at the ballot box.
I don't recall the incredible amount spent on the weapons or on delivery systems and maintenance. It's nosebleed territory to be sure. Like the F-35 program its one of those weapons systems that no one in Congress appears to be willing to vote against.
This waving weapons systems we can't use has nothing to do with international relations and everything to do with stealing yet more tax money from domestic programs. I can't recall who wrote the study, and I know there have been a number of them, but someone once compared what we spend on "defense" hardware to the same money invested in public health, education, infrastructure and updating our energy system. The financial outcome was substantial. Its the kind of money that could wipe out the National Debt and pay for college education for anyone at the same time.
I'm not naïve about national defense. Whatever world we're going to have we still need an Army, a Navy and so-on. However we can't afford the kind of mindless spending we've been engaged in ever since Reagan and W both blew the budgets out.
The folks who are pulling the Nuclear strings in Brexit Britain are the same ones doing it here and Putin complaining about is egging it on IMO.
= new reply since forum marked as read
