Does the United States in 2007 really need to continue spending taxpayer dollars on ICBMs?
Where are the fiscal conservatives argueing that this is useless government spending.
If you say its about being tough on defense, # 1 - didn't the Soviet Union fall in 1991, and # 2 - we have 20,000+ ICBMs. Do we really need a 20,001rst?
2007-10-13 09:21:42 · 5 answers · asked by Spartacus 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Nuclear weapons kill everything--plants, grass, animals, and yes, civilians. No, we do not need the number of ICBMs we have, but we have far less than 20,000.
2007-10-13 09:32:43 · answer #1 · answered by James S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a major conflict masses of civilian population work in the military industry. Like Richmond California had 120,000 people building ships during WWII.
These large ICBMs are designed to disrupt centers of military industry. Refineries, Munitions plants, Food processing etc.
2007-10-13 16:32:18 · answer #2 · answered by Rocketman 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, as technology advances so does the supply of ICBMs. So it's about being prepared with the top technology available. No worries, if a dem gets into power they'll spend that money on more Bridges to Nowhere so the next time we need to go attack someone we'll have more delays with current technology and they can gripe about our troops not being prepared....
2007-10-13 16:26:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Wrong numbers. ICBMs carry multiple warheads. Also, the U.S. has less than 12,000 nukes and each year that number is decreasing rapidly.
2007-10-13 16:34:33 · answer #4 · answered by a bush family member 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
70,000 nuclear devices,,total,,give a few more for the special classified ones,,,money well spent I would say,,,chow.
2007-10-13 16:25:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋