Good Stewardship : Nuclear Weapons and Military Spending.

Did you know the U.S. spends more on military spending then all other leading countries combined? They requested $705.4 billion in 2021. This year they were asking for $752.9 billion for the defense budget. here’s the top 10 totals for 2021 (Note that China and Saudi are both estimates).

Nuclear Arms : the budget request for the next 9 years would cost a total of $634 billion over the 2021–2030 period, for an average of just over $60 billion a year, CBO estimates. .I do not understand why we need the capability of destroying the world times over or nuclear arms that render a land uninhabitable for about 300 years. Nuclear testing is shown to contaminate rain. .The most likely use of these weapons is actually a high altitude detonation, I believe. Most wars have to do with money and resources (if not all). Here is a 2019 article explaining using a nuke as an E.M.P. device at high altitude But did you know that its estimated (at one point), you can build an E.M.P. bomb for around $5,500, that had the range to disable most of Manhatten? Here’s an article on how to build small ones with household items. My point being that China could send a cheap armada of those and satellites would not be able to detect the radiation. Depending on the fuel some of the waste could have an extremely long half life. Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years, .We store a large portion of our waste in salt flats. The issue is we store it in barrels that may last 5,000-to 8,000 years. They place metal signs in multiple languages and symbols at the mouth of these underground dumps but do we know if the signs will even last to that point? We could have new fault lines, a smaller meteor could explode before impact in the region creating a terrible dirty bomb potentially, society may collapse and we speak completely different languages, if somehow the region flooded (as at one point it was under the sea) this would be bad as well. If someone hit it with a few bunker busters and a hellfire it could be a massive dirty bomb.. one that has poisonous levels for close to 48,000 years seems ridiculously risky. Can’t we gauge most nuclear refinement or trust an intermediary to have every nation agree to not use nuclear weapons stronger than the originals or (I believe it was actually) 1/5 of a megaton? If you want to spread them out but with nuclear arms we should NOT be allowed to use hyper missiles that have 0% probability of interception (only automatic counterstrikes from shielded silos). We should not be able to take out a country with 1 nuke. Nukes should be limited so that we don’t have a 300 year wait to reihabit. We are waiting precious resources that might be integral in space colonization. Keeping in mind our own government accidently dropped one of these on our homeland (on accident, luckily it didn’t go off), maybe we are far more likely of killing ourselves with the waste or improper handling, than anyone actually attacking us. I would think it could be likely as technology advances and governments collapse that these things will eventually be sold on the black market (at least the spent fuel for dirty bombs). Its such a waste of money and energy when essentially they would be used as E.M.P devices most likely anyhow. If we don’t already have these they complicate things even more going down this path. Eventually if not already we will have orbital silos, with staged fuel missiles. Those would be pretty hard to intercept as well, after that we’d have to have liquid oxygen fighter drones protect the thing 24/7 and probably a manned warship of some kind to control in orbit in case of a mass devastation event. They would probably just hang out for an unspecified time then re counter to catch them off guard. After that we may have unmarked drone fights (since I do not believe the Geneva convention holds out in space wars). Just use warheads with a payload twice that of little boy or fat man, we use less nuclear material and it is still a city killer, you would only have to use 3 or 4 of these and a large amount of E.M.P. warheads to take out most countries, plus we have a nuke wall capability for protection. So maybe a few high grade weapons, or legislate the rockets themselves. If we made a rule set that all nuclear missiles have to have an ability to be canceled and dearmed for a safe crash, then that means you can essentially make an E.M.P. wall, continually detonating them over the ocean. E.M.Ps could have shielding though. We get the same effects without the waste or cost if all nations are on board and accept to be inspected and we keep up with satellite monitoring of refinement.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: