3 ms·

Why do you need the other 18,000 bombs? Every bomb must be purchased from the armaments manufacturers who actually control our society. The same who originally

Why do you need the other 18,000 bombs? Every bomb must be purchased from the armaments manufacturers who actually control our society. The same who originally bamboozled Truman into damning our species. Your question is equivalent to "why do they want more money?"

graeme 6y ago
Any money is in selling bombs that are used, so you can sell more. Not much money in nukes, and you can very by stock exchange listings. This kind of conspiracy thinking utterly ignores the horrifying logic of MAD. Read a bit about Bernard Brodie, pre-eminent strategist, he laid it all out for why deterrence was sadly the only way to go and that we must live in a state of mutually assured destruction. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Brodie_(military_strategist) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Brodie_(military_str...
- yesenadam 6y ago
  > Any money is in selling bombs that are used, so you can sell more. Not much money in nukes World nuclear arms spending hit $73bn last year – half of it by US. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/13/nuclear-weapons-world-record-spending https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/13/nuclear-weapon... "The U.S. government is now estimated to have 6,800 nuclear weapons at its disposal, but America hasn’t actually built a new warhead or bomb since the 1990s. “It has refurbished several types in recent years to extend their lifetime,”...The B61-12 atomic bombs, for instance, are to undergo a life-extension program that will cost roughly $9.5 billion. There are 400 to 500 of these bombs... which means refurbishing one will cost about $20 million. W-80 warheads, another type being refurbished, are estimated to cost $75 million each ... the total cost of the W-80 life extension plan will be $7.3 billion to $9.9 billion over 17 years." https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/08/heres-how-much-a-nuclear-weapon-costs.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/08/heres-how-much-a-nuclear-wea... Sounds like serious money to me. More details about which companies are making the most money and how: http://www.nuclearweaponsmoney.org/corporations/ http://www.nuclearweaponsmoney.org/corporations/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/01/02/20-companies-profiting-the-most-from-war/40902917/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/01/02/20-companies...
  - graeme 6y ago
    The US govt spends 7.3 trillion dollars per year. So that’s about 0.5% of spending. As a fraction of US GDP it’s about 0.17%. It’s tiny. The claim I was arguing against was this: > the armaments manufacturers who actually control our society You can’t control society with 0.17% of US GDP! Note also that most of that spending does not flow to arms contractors so the actual figure is less. The bulk is spend on the defense department and other government agencies. Here’s the report your article cites. See page 9 https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ican/pages/1549/attachments/original/1589365383/ICAN-Enough-is-Enough-Global-Nuclear-Weapons-Spending-2020-published-13052020.pdf?1589365383 https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ican/pages/1549/attach...
    - yesenadam 6y ago
      Well, it seems a bit pointless debating whether billions of dollars is not much/tiny or a lot. >> the armaments manufacturers who actually control our society > You can’t control society with 0.17% of US GDP! That doesn't seem fair. The companies involved are involved in a lot more than nuclear weapons, as I guess you know. (see my last 2 links)
      - graeme 6y ago
        Yeah, they’re much bigger, but the point is the nuclear spending is clearly not the key to any power they do wield. As I said, 0.17% of gdp covers all the spending, including on govt salaries. Only a portion of that actually goes to manufacturers.
        jessaustin 6y ago
        We currently spend about $750 billion every year on the military, not counting the "black" budget. The stinking, offensive waste will soon exceed a trillion every year. That ain't all going to the VA hospitals. Besides, at this point every American who could have remembered a more normal way to live, is dead. The reptiles won. We literally can't stop spending vast sums killing brown people and preparing to kill more.
- yesenadam 6y ago
  Thank you, am reading his Strategy in the Missile Age, which is surprisingly a very enjoyable read. Brodie was evidently a cultured guy and a good writer. There's quite a bit of history and philosophy, and the first 2 pages are entirely about Paradise Lost! PDF: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/commercial_books/2007/RAND_CB137-1.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/commercial_books/...
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    One can't be surprised that Rand Corporation, an entity created by the military-industrial complex to help it control journalists and politicians, would publish such a book.
PeterisP 6y ago
That might explain the USA part of the arsenal, but it can't be the whole explanation because that would not work for USSR. And, since whatever was the reasons for USSR, it most likely also applied to USA as well, reducing the need to pin it all on commercial interests.
- graeme 6y ago
  Thanks this is much more elegant than what I came up with.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Stalin was (justifiably) frightened by nuclear weapons. Any time between August 1945 and mid-1949, Truman could have picked up the phone and said "we've decided to step back from the brink". Stalin would have eagerly agreed. Instead, USA developed vastly more destructive fusion weapons, and the first unofficial act of newly created CIA intentionally leaked designs to the Russians. That's why their first functional weapon was a carbon copy of early American weapons. Truman would later regret creating one of the several monsters that ate his soul [0], but he was clearly out of his depth from the moment that he learned of atomic weapons. None of the top military brass wanted to use the atomic bomb. [1] The reptiles knew what they were doing in 1944 when they replaced Henry Wallace with an easily controlled Missouri hick. Truman himself didn't know their precise plans, but he had to know he wasn't the man who should've gotten that job. He let ambition overrule propriety. Of course, Truman isn't the only human to blame for the mess we've been in for 75 years. Most of the scientists who developed the bomb knew better than he did what the result would be. "MAD" is not an acceptable condition for human life. We endure it because some reptiles desired further enrichment. No good intentions paved their way to their current location. Throughout our existence, USA's projections of the worst possible intentions on the part of other nations have driven our deepest depravities, to a far greater extent than the real situations we've faced. [0] https://truthout.org/articles/trumans-true-warning-on-the-cia/ https://truthout.org/articles/trumans-true-warning-on-the-ci... [1] https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/ https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-the-us-really-bo...

graeme 6y ago

Any money is in selling bombs that are used, so you can sell more. Not much money in nukes, and you can very by stock exchange listings. This kind of conspiracy thinking utterly ignores the horrifying logic of MAD. Read a bit about Bernard Brodie, pre-eminent strategist, he laid it all out for why deterrence was sadly the only way to go and that we must live in a state of mutually assured destruction. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Brodie_(military_strategist) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Brodie_(military_str...

yesenadam 6y ago
> Any money is in selling bombs that are used, so you can sell more. Not much money in nukes World nuclear arms spending hit $73bn last year – half of it by US. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/13/nuclear-weapons-world-record-spending https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/13/nuclear-weapon... "The U.S. government is now estimated to have 6,800 nuclear weapons at its disposal, but America hasn’t actually built a new warhead or bomb since the 1990s. “It has refurbished several types in recent years to extend their lifetime,”...The B61-12 atomic bombs, for instance, are to undergo a life-extension program that will cost roughly $9.5 billion. There are 400 to 500 of these bombs... which means refurbishing one will cost about $20 million. W-80 warheads, another type being refurbished, are estimated to cost $75 million each ... the total cost of the W-80 life extension plan will be $7.3 billion to $9.9 billion over 17 years." https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/08/heres-how-much-a-nuclear-weapon-costs.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/08/heres-how-much-a-nuclear-wea... Sounds like serious money to me. More details about which companies are making the most money and how: http://www.nuclearweaponsmoney.org/corporations/ http://www.nuclearweaponsmoney.org/corporations/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/01/02/20-companies-profiting-the-most-from-war/40902917/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/01/02/20-companies...
- graeme 6y ago
  The US govt spends 7.3 trillion dollars per year. So that’s about 0.5% of spending. As a fraction of US GDP it’s about 0.17%. It’s tiny. The claim I was arguing against was this: > the armaments manufacturers who actually control our society You can’t control society with 0.17% of US GDP! Note also that most of that spending does not flow to arms contractors so the actual figure is less. The bulk is spend on the defense department and other government agencies. Here’s the report your article cites. See page 9 https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ican/pages/1549/attachments/original/1589365383/ICAN-Enough-is-Enough-Global-Nuclear-Weapons-Spending-2020-published-13052020.pdf?1589365383 https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ican/pages/1549/attach...
  - yesenadam 6y ago
    Well, it seems a bit pointless debating whether billions of dollars is not much/tiny or a lot. >> the armaments manufacturers who actually control our society > You can’t control society with 0.17% of US GDP! That doesn't seem fair. The companies involved are involved in a lot more than nuclear weapons, as I guess you know. (see my last 2 links)
    - graeme 6y ago
      Yeah, they’re much bigger, but the point is the nuclear spending is clearly not the key to any power they do wield. As I said, 0.17% of gdp covers all the spending, including on govt salaries. Only a portion of that actually goes to manufacturers.
      - jessaustin 6y ago
        We currently spend about $750 billion every year on the military, not counting the "black" budget. The stinking, offensive waste will soon exceed a trillion every year. That ain't all going to the VA hospitals. Besides, at this point every American who could have remembered a more normal way to live, is dead. The reptiles won. We literally can't stop spending vast sums killing brown people and preparing to kill more.
yesenadam 6y ago
Thank you, am reading his Strategy in the Missile Age, which is surprisingly a very enjoyable read. Brodie was evidently a cultured guy and a good writer. There's quite a bit of history and philosophy, and the first 2 pages are entirely about Paradise Lost! PDF: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/commercial_books/2007/RAND_CB137-1.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/commercial_books/...
- jessaustin 6y ago
  One can't be surprised that Rand Corporation, an entity created by the military-industrial complex to help it control journalists and politicians, would publish such a book.

PeterisP 6y ago

That might explain the USA part of the arsenal, but it can't be the whole explanation because that would not work for USSR. And, since whatever was the reasons for USSR, it most likely also applied to USA as well, reducing the need to pin it all on commercial interests.

graeme 6y ago
Thanks this is much more elegant than what I came up with.
jessaustin 6y ago
Stalin was (justifiably) frightened by nuclear weapons. Any time between August 1945 and mid-1949, Truman could have picked up the phone and said "we've decided to step back from the brink". Stalin would have eagerly agreed. Instead, USA developed vastly more destructive fusion weapons, and the first unofficial act of newly created CIA intentionally leaked designs to the Russians. That's why their first functional weapon was a carbon copy of early American weapons. Truman would later regret creating one of the several monsters that ate his soul [0], but he was clearly out of his depth from the moment that he learned of atomic weapons. None of the top military brass wanted to use the atomic bomb. [1] The reptiles knew what they were doing in 1944 when they replaced Henry Wallace with an easily controlled Missouri hick. Truman himself didn't know their precise plans, but he had to know he wasn't the man who should've gotten that job. He let ambition overrule propriety. Of course, Truman isn't the only human to blame for the mess we've been in for 75 years. Most of the scientists who developed the bomb knew better than he did what the result would be. "MAD" is not an acceptable condition for human life. We endure it because some reptiles desired further enrichment. No good intentions paved their way to their current location. Throughout our existence, USA's projections of the worst possible intentions on the part of other nations have driven our deepest depravities, to a far greater extent than the real situations we've faced. [0] https://truthout.org/articles/trumans-true-warning-on-the-cia/ https://truthout.org/articles/trumans-true-warning-on-the-ci... [1] https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/ https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-the-us-really-bo...