‘Anti-nuclear’ Obama plans to spend $1 trillion on nukes


Despite campaigning on a platform that endorsed having “a nuclear-free world” in the not so distant future, United States President Barack Obama is overseeing an administration that’s aim has taken another path, the New York Times reported this week.

On Sunday, journalists William Broad and David Sanger wrote for the Times that a half-decade of “political deals and geopolitical crises” have thrown a wrench in the works of Pres. Obama’s pre-White House plans, as a result eviscerating his previously stated intentions of putting America’s — and ideally the world’s — nuclear programs on ice.  

According to the Times report, an effort to ensure that the antiquated nuclear arsenal being held by the US remains secure has since expanded to the point that upwards of $1 trillion dollars is now expected to be spent on various realms of the project during the next three decades, the likes of which are likely to keep the trove of American nukes intact and do little to discourage other nations from doing differently.

The original idea was that modest rebuilding of the nation’s crumbling nuclear complex would speed arms refurbishment, raising confidence in the arsenal’s reliability and paving the way for new treaties that would significantly cut the number of warheads,” the journalists wrote. “Instead, because of political deals and geopolitical crises, the Obama administration is engaging in extensive atomic rebuilding while getting only modest arms reductions in return.”

Shortly after he first entered the oval office in early 2009, the Nobel Peace Prize commission awarded Pres. Obama with its highest award for, among other factors, taking a strong stance against international nuclear procurement.

Reuters/Larry Downing

Reuters/Larry Downing

I’m not naïve,” Obama said that year. “This goal will not be reached quickly — perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence.”

After speaking with analysts, however, the Times journalists — both Pulitzer winners in their own right — now raise doubts that the commander-in-chief’s campaign goals will come to fruition anytime soon.

With Russia on the warpath, China pressing its own territorial claims and Pakistan expanding its arsenal, the overall chances for Mr. Obama’s legacy of disarmament look increasingly dim, analysts say,” they wrote. “Congress has expressed less interest in atomic reductions than looking tough in Washington’s escalating confrontation with Moscow.”

Indeed, international disputes have without a doubt raised concerns in recent years over the nuclear programs of other nations. The Washington Post reported this week that Pakistan is working towards achieving the capability to launch sea-based, short-range nuclear arms, and concurrently the Kremlin confirmed that Russia is set to renew the country’s strategic nuclear forces by 100 percent, not 70 percent as previously announced.

As those countries ramp up their nuclear programs on their own, the Times report cites a recent study from the Washington, DC-based Government Accountability Office to show that the US is making more than just a minor investment with regards to America’s nukes. According to that report, 21 major upgrades to nuclear facilities have already been approved, yet in the five years since Obama took office, “the modernization push” to upgrade the nukes has been “poorly managed and financially unaccountable.”

It estimated the total cost of the nuclear enterprise over the next three decades at roughly $900 billion to $1.1 trillion,” the journalists noted. “Policy makers, the [GAO] report said, ‘are only now beginning to appreciate the full scope of these procurement costs.’”


3 thoughts on “‘Anti-nuclear’ Obama plans to spend $1 trillion on nukes

  1. Since it looks like we’ll be using quite a few of them soon…and the Israelis stole a bunch of our old ones…I guess we better “make some more”.
    Gotta keep pouring the money down the hole of 70+ year old technology to destroy the planet.
    Dammit, we’ve got much more modern (suppressed, for national security purposes) scientific technology…to destroy the planet.
    Actually, we’ll probably use the new technology…but blame it on the older tech. You know…keeping it secret for national security purposes…like in Iraq and Panama and on 9/11…and also so the bankers can make a shitload of money forcing the sheeple to use antique technology so that they can continue to milk the populace with their monopolies.

  2. Is RT suggesting here that a politicians campaign platform has anything to do whatsoever with his actions in office?

    ALL of the “world leaders” you’re seeing and/or reading about are only still in power because they’re obedient servants of the Rothschilds. All others are dead, unless they rule over an insignificant country with no valuable resources. Obama, Putin, the Chief Chink whose name escapes me right now, are all puppets in a big show designed to convince you that there’s something going on other than the theft of your property and freedom in the name of protecting you from imaginary threats.

    Absolutely NONE of the wars are necessary, except for the purpose of robbing you and killing you. Every national leader you’re hearing about in the Zionist news is a tool of the Zionists, and all of their publicized actions are only part of the same show. It’s a scripted “reality” unfolding in the “news” that’s being billed as important events, when they should all be ignored in favor of securing your own freedom and property from the thieves in your own criminal government.

    1. Your right on the money JR, I read some where that the zionist are having a very hard time getting control of our nuke system, so this must be the back door in for them (Zionist).

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.