3 ms·

This is an anti-nuclear weapon article masquerading as a policy dispute. You can protest the existence of nuclear weapons and support disarmament, that's a val

This is an anti-nuclear weapon article masquerading as a policy dispute. You can protest the existence of nuclear weapons and support disarmament, that's a valid position, but raising the issue as having a problem with the placement of the silos or something like that is bananas. They try to make an issue of the radiation spread following a full-scale nuclear attack on the United States, or "increased crime from construction workers", can't really be taken seriously. Because these reporters don't really have a problem with the silos being here or there (well, maybe they would prefer them there), they don't have a solution like "The heartland is the wrong place for these silos, they should be in Alaska". Their problem is not in the solutions the Air Force has come up with for modernizing the US nuclear arsenal, their problem is with the US having a nuclear arsenal. In which case just say that. Don't tell me the US shouldn't have a nuclear arsenal because we're going to increase the size of our waste storage or whatever.

_visgean 3y ago
well you could abandon the silos completely and only have air and submarine delivered missiles (e.g. UK only has submarines)
- nickelpro 3y ago
  That would barely address the articles concerns, as those warheads still need storage, still cost money, still generate waste, still require environmental impact reports for their construction, movement, and storage. The actual, physical silo is only about a third of what this article takes issue with. The overwhelming majority is focused on its nature as a nuclear silo, and the nuclear aspect doesn't change even if you get rid of the silo.
- cameldrv 3y ago
  Now that the UK is down to only submarines, the anti-nuclear people try to get rid of that. A couple of years ago, RT and Wilileaks trotted out this sailor that claimed that the British Trident fleet was unsafe and so they should retire it, and incidentally eliminate the British nuclear deterrent. This was right before a vote to authorize multiple years of funding for it. Obviously the best arms control treaty is the one your enemy imposes on themselves.

_visgean 3y ago

well you could abandon the silos completely and only have air and submarine delivered missiles (e.g. UK only has submarines)

nickelpro 3y ago
That would barely address the articles concerns, as those warheads still need storage, still cost money, still generate waste, still require environmental impact reports for their construction, movement, and storage. The actual, physical silo is only about a third of what this article takes issue with. The overwhelming majority is focused on its nature as a nuclear silo, and the nuclear aspect doesn't change even if you get rid of the silo.
cameldrv 3y ago
Now that the UK is down to only submarines, the anti-nuclear people try to get rid of that. A couple of years ago, RT and Wilileaks trotted out this sailor that claimed that the British Trident fleet was unsafe and so they should retire it, and incidentally eliminate the British nuclear deterrent. This was right before a vote to authorize multiple years of funding for it. Obviously the best arms control treaty is the one your enemy imposes on themselves.