NYT

Yes there is a bank called Arab Bank.

NIH alone says it spends $30 billion a year on medical research. So unless all non-medical scientific research is less than $3.33 billion, that would appear to not be correct.

Any proof this is a vital piece of the military? Nukes are tactically redundant against any current threats and America has enough to destroy the world twenty times over. It's not like anyone has figured out a way to stop a single ICBM let alone a rain of hundreds of them so it's not like they need to be stealthy or faster or more destructive or more accurate etc.

Also aren't you a fiscal libertarian? This is something you should be bitching about.

I think it's more like we need to upgrade our nukes, not so they are more efficient but so we don't have to use 5 1/4" floppy drives to operate and arm them anymore. I'm all for reducing the military but let's pick something truly terrible like that jet program that even the Pentagon doesn't want, or reduce all military spending, etc.

I think that's pretty close to the number for non-medical research, although my estimation was ~$30B total and about $25B NIH or so. NIH funding >>> all other research.

Great read. I was graduating from HS when all that happened. All I remember is the picture on the boat and then no more Gary Hart. It's cool to get real insight into what happened.

It's crazy that history could have been forever altered because one young woman was annoyed by her friend's bragging over screwing around with a presidential candidate. At lease Linda Tripp was looking for influence or money or something.

Good life lesson: no matter how cool and discreet the woman you fool around with is, her friend might not be.

My Dad worked with Gary Hart in the Denver office for the Robert Kennedy campaign. I was 3 to 6 months old at the time. Maybe I met Gary Hart.

I bet it would take minimal, possibly zero, modification to the current missiles to update the launch systems. You dont need to make a new missile to get rid of the super old cold war era launch systems, if you did they are about to make the entire stockpile of nukes obsolete.

A couple interesting observations about the limits of human memory can be derived from that article. Related to the above:

And another aspect:

1) NIH budget alone is basically that. We're not even getting into stuff like NASA or DOD. This statement is obviously wrong then.

2) Research is not a purely public venture. No private entity is allowed to start their own nuclear weapons program.

3) We spend a **** ton more on research than what the government does.

tactically redundant against current threats? The **** are you talking about? We're not rebuilding the nuclear weapon program man, we're making it safer, more efficient and better.

All of this, so much. Having a proper nuclear deterrent is probably the most important thing to upholding general world peace phil. It's really important the program isn't based off of 1960s technology.

Huh? Just send a couple guys from The Geek Squad and Bob's your uncle?

Ikes, the current nuclear capability is more than a deterrent and is just as capable as what the new nukes can do. It doesnt need more missiles.

Even as the article says about a third is about modernising the launch systems and I bet that is bloated beyond what it would be if the goal was just to modernise the launch control systems and not about building useless new weapons to replace useless old weapons, new nuclear subs that will never be used to replace old nuclear subs that never got used etc.

The only reason they are building more nukes is to get rid of old nukes in a dumb deal Republicans dug their heels in over, no one actually thinks they are needed (except ikes).

If you truly think that 1960s nuclear weapon tech will be reliable and effective in 2040 you must be phil.

If you think America stopped making nuclear weapons in the 1960s you must be Ikes.

The best way for America to secure its nukes, modernise its launch systems and so forth is to have less nukes. Not more. Assuming you only want to turn the entire surface of the planet into a nuclear wasteland, you know just in case, America could get rid of 90%+ of its nuclear arsenal.

Phill really wants to argue about the number! Maybe one day he will find out who he can make that argument against.

My quick read of that story indicates that is the plan phil.

SL, they are making lots of redundant cold war era weapons and systems. You could reduce the arsenal and modernise what is left for a fraction of that trillion.

The future of warfare is conventional weaponry launched from drones, not a nuclear deterrent against China and Russia.

With weapons that would be 40, 50, 60, and even 70 years old in 2040.

The only reason why warfare is conventional is due to the nuclear deterrent against everybody.

They are absolutely keeping the nuclear deterrent in place.

I just got my first pollster (I think) call. She rattled off the names super quick and I didn't understand her and the names didn't sound familiar so I thought they were for my old district in Illinois. I asked her to repeat the names and she mumbled 'oh for heavens...' and then hung up.

I'll never get polled again

Not all that outrageous, really. obv it's loaded with pork, but keeping decades-old nukes in working condition is a legitimate nat'l security expense.

More legal drama from the heart of Pennsyltucky: A Mother in Jail for Helping Her Daughter Have an Abortion

Cliffs: she then ordered RU-486 online and is now in jail after being charged with (and pleading guilty to) a felony, offering medical consultation about abortion without a medical license.

an hour drive requires an overnight? Seems like she just wanted to give a pill and not do it in person.