Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Printable Version | Subscribe | Add to Favourites   Post new thread Poll:
Author: Subject: More Nukes For The USA So Says The Navy Chief
JackInCT
Custom User Title
*******




Posts: 1413
Registered: 21-4-2007
Theme: KF Blue (Default)
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] Post 500742 posted on 6-1-2016 at 17:16 Reply With Quote
More Nukes For The USA So Says The Navy Chief



More Nukes For The USA So Says The Navy Chief

This is an article written by the Associated Press (AP), & published today 01/06/16. I would caution readers re just how well this article factually conveys the essence of what this admiral said.

WASHINGTON (AP) In his blueprint for a stronger Navy, the sea service's new top boss, Adm. John M. Richardson, is blunt about what he thinks matters most: nuclear punch.

Battling terrorists is today's problem, but in looking toward a farther horizon, Richardson wants a Navy built to counter unpredictable future threats from other countries. No. 1 on his list is a new fleet of nuclear-armed submarines, known as "boomers," that prowl the oceans as the quiet centerpiece of the nation's nuclear force. The Navy plans to replace the current fleet of 14 Ohio-class boomers, which began service as early as 1981, with 12 next-generation subs.

"This is foundational to our survival as a nation," Richardson writes in what he calls his design for the future, released Tuesday.

It also is a gigantic investment, estimated at $100 billion. Even one of the project's biggest supporters, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., calls the cost "staggering." And it happens to be just one of three efforts by the Pentagon to modernize the U.S. nuclear "triad" - new long-range bomber aircraft, new or upgraded land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and new missile-toting submarines. The price tag for these, plus related upgrades and replacements, is likely to approach $348 billion by 2024, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Richardson acknowledges the expense but argues it is part of the cost of doing business on the world stage.

"From a security standpoint in this day and age, a world-class nuclear capability" is required to be considered a great power, he said Dec. 31 in an Associated Press interview. Without it, "we could be threatened or coerced by another nation who could hold this nuclear threat over our heads," he added.

Me Here: When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn!
View User's Profile View All Posts By User
marymary100
Underwater Plumber
********


Avatar


Posts: 32192
Registered: 9-5-2004
Location: Scotia
Theme: Iconic
Member Is Offline

Mood: fact me

[*] Post 500745 posted on 6-1-2016 at 19:08 Reply With Quote


Can you point me in the direction of the women who are clamouring for more weapons of mass destruction?
View User's Profile View All Posts By User
LSemmens
Undercover MOD
********


Avatar


Posts: 32767
Registered: 19-11-2004
Location: Riverton, South Australia
Theme: Windows XP Silver
Member Is Offline

Mood: Gone crazy, Back soo

[*] Post 500760 posted on 7-1-2016 at 14:20 Reply With Quote


Your point is irrelevant, Mary, I don't see too many men clamouring for it either. The USA is the only nation ever to have used Nukes in an aggressive manner, and, I pray that no one ever does again. Why they need to increase their arsenal is beyond me. There are already enough nukes in the world to turn this whole planet "extra crispy" for a few thousand years to come.
View User's Profile View All Posts By User
Post new thread Poll:

Guest Notice
You are a guest, as a guest you can only see a maximum of 3 posts per thread.

If you want to see the rest, please click here to register.