Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: PJBankard
-- Didn't miss too much. --

The audience is asking tough, good questions. One guy brought up Benghazi and Hillary abandoning people there. Trump says he knows about that, and is puzzled that the press is giving it a pass.

The old man's question about the Fed was good too.

One gal asked a good question about reducing the size of our nuclear arsenal. She was not happy with the answer, and I think Trump would reconsider his answer, once he gets a handle on the cost to decommission warheads, and how many are really needed to maintain deterrence. We have 7,000 warheads, the gal said that some generals say 1,000 warheads would be adequate. There is lots of room between those two numbers, and the cost to decommission and maintain a warhead is HUGE.

56 posted on 02/08/2016 7:33:36 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt

Our current stockpile is only at ~4700 nuclear warheads. Mind you that over half of those warheads are MIRV on the Minuteman III ICBM and the Trident II SLBM. Minuteman III carries 3 warheads. Trident II carries 8 warheads, there are 24 Trident II missiles on a ballistic missile sub. A single ballistic missile sub carries 192 warheads. We have 14 SSBNs. Our sub fleet alone carries 2688 warheads. Our stockpile should be considerably larger. It is also cheaper to develop new warheads than to maintain older models.


77 posted on 02/08/2016 7:50:32 AM PST by PJBankard (It is the spirit of the men who leads that gains the victory. - Gen. George Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

I don’t know anything about the cost, but agreed with his answer to the effect of why are we deleting our warheads when others are not (paraphrasing). I think he then said something about negotiation (but could be wrong on that). Russia, Iran (TBD but if they supposedly don’t have them now, they will in the not too distant future), NK, Pakistan, India and any others that have nuclear; and, after the Iran deal others in the ME want them. Why should we deplete our nuclear arsenal if others are building theirs up and/or want to acquire them. I don’t know (and nothing against you, Cboldt) I’m just trying to understand as it doesn’t make sense to me (though I admit I don’t know a lot about it). Strength through military and IMHO that includes nuclear - which is something we hopefully never have to use and no other country uses either.


96 posted on 02/08/2016 8:10:56 AM PST by Seattle Conservative (God Bless and protect our troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

I’ll give Trump a pass on the nuclear question. Nobody outside the military could know much about that. He will know when he can do something about it.


168 posted on 02/08/2016 12:27:56 PM PST by WVNan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson