|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Dec 16, 2015 18:55:58 GMT -8
(CNN)—National security issues dominated Tuesday night's Republican presidential candidate debate. And while the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino -- and the conflict with ISIS -- took center stage, the candidates also sparred on the under-the-radar issue of nuclear weapons policy. The question is whether any of the candidates fully understand quite how critical this subject is to America's security. As former Defense Secretary William Perry recently warned, the United States and Russia are on the verge of a new nuclear arms race, and Washington is currently planning to spend roughly $1 trillion dollars on nuclear weapons over the next 30 years without any real national debate. How did the candidates do on the issue Tuesday? Debate panelist Hugh Hewitt asked Donald Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio how they would approach the stewardship of America's aging nuclear arsenal. Trump clearly had not done his homework on the subject, ending a rambling answer with "nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me." us.cnn.com/2015/12/16/opinions/reif-nuclear-weapons-policy/index.html |
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Dec 17, 2015 3:06:33 GMT -8
Yeah, The Donald stepped in it pretty badly and wasn't able to bullshit his way through this one, I listened to audio of his answer. Rubio's answer isn't getting the same amount of coverage beyond the tiny bit provided in this article which means there probably wasn't a lot of substance there either, and not a lot of bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Dec 17, 2015 5:24:37 GMT -8
Yeah, The Donald stepped in it pretty badly and wasn't able to bullshit his way through this one, I listened to audio of his answer. Rubio's answer isn't getting the same amount of coverage beyond the tiny bit provided in this article which means there probably wasn't a lot of substance there either, and not a lot of bullshit. |
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Dec 17, 2015 5:29:40 GMT -8
Truthfully, the post wasn't meant as an attack on the candidates, so much as it was meant to address an issue we are going to have to think about dealing with.
If the F-35, a fighter, cost so much, how much is it going to cost the replace our aging Triad?
It will have to be dealt with, sooner or later, by someone.
And, sooner or later, it is going to cost a pretty penny.
Count on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Dec 18, 2015 3:48:44 GMT -8
Truthfully, the post wasn't meant as an attack on the candidates, so much as it was meant to address an issue we are going to have to think about dealing with[/quote.] No, the attack was mine. Oh yeah, it's gonna be expensive. Each sub will cost around $5 billion in today's money to replace. We might be able to save a bit by building on the base provided by the Trident II missile, upgrading it and utilizing it in both the seaborne and land based legs. Honestly, Minuteman is nearly ready for Social Security. The bomber leg ... B-52?  Just kidding of course but I'd like to see what Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman and Boeing have up their sleeves. A combination long range strike aircraft plus stand-off cruise missile? |
|
