But of course this is the President that called for world Nuclear disarmament back when he was first running for office. Now that he can't run for office he's saying the things his friends will hang him for. Namely that we need a new bomber, that the trident submarines will have to be replaced, that we need a replacement ICBM and even a new cruise missile.
As usual however the same groups that stood against Reagan back in the 1980s are up in arms over this activity. They ignored the Iran nuclear program, seemed unconcerned when Gaddafi revealed he had a nuclear program, barely even flinch when the Pakistanis deployed another nuke, or seem to say anything about the N. Korean nuke test other then its not a productive action. No they only really criticize our actions.
The cost of the programs are too high, the weapons are always destabilizing, and both the Russian and the Chinese will not like it,. Well so what, they are not defending this nation or our allies. They in fact have been threatening those allies for a few years now and talking about nuking the United States for as many. To sit there and only do what they want is capitulation, and I haven't seen the white flag start flying over the White House.
Cruise missiles are not destabilizing, its the people saying this that are unstable. Thirty years ago they denied we ever had any cruise missiles before the reagan build up. Now they still say it while screaming one of these "never existing" cruise missiles nearly nuked Beijing during the Cuban Missile crisis. So what is it, did the Mace exist or didn't it. And if it did why for thirty years did you deny it. And why do they still deny the past existence of the Hound Dog supersonic cruise missile. Then again, they now say this new bomb will have variable yield, a capability I noted in my book back in the 1990s on that and several other bombs. In short how did we have it on 1970 vintage bombs and yet now it is a new feature.
Yes, I am asking for accuracy and honesty from people who I truly suspect have no idea of what they are protesting about. In 2006 one major anti-nuclear group even disavowed the existence of the Hydrogen bomb in making their argument against the suitcase nuke. But after all these years, and so many people tell us that The Democratic party is the party of science and facts, it would be nice to have a factual argument on this, of all, subjects.