START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Are There Nuclear Weapons in Your Neighborhood?


US Politics & Gov't  (tags: abuse, americans, congress, corruption, cover-up, dishonesty, economy, ethics, government, Govtfearmongering, lies, politics, propaganda, troops, war, usa, military, u.s. )

JL
- 564 days ago - armscontrolcenter.org
It's no secret that far too much taxpayer money is eaten up by those who do not grasp that the Cold War is over - both politicians and weapons contractors. The bloated, wasteful nuclear weapons budget is no exception. Check out the map to find out



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

JL A. (276)
Sunday June 9, 2013, 11:31 am
Itís no secret that far too much taxpayer money is eaten up by those who do not grasp that the Cold War is over - both politicians and weapons contractors. The bloated, wasteful nuclear weapons budget is no exception.

Check out the map below to find out where the U.S. stores its nuclear weapons.

Every year, we spend an estimated $30 billion maintaining thousands of nuclear weapons that we no longer need. We need to be allocating our resources more smartly and working toward policies that actually keep us safe, but some members of Congress would prefer to protect the nuclear bases and laboratories in their states.

Click the map below to see where the nuclear facilities are Ė and which members of Congress have a stake in protecting them.

Spending much-needed money on an outdated nuclear arsenal keeps us from addressing todayís more pressing threats.

Council for a Livable World works to support a more sensible national security policy for the 21st century.

Thanks for helping us make a difference.

John Isaacs & Guy Stevens
 

Kit B. (276)
Sunday June 9, 2013, 12:11 pm

Listing only one in Texas, though I doubt that is true.
 

Kit B. (276)
Sunday June 9, 2013, 12:16 pm

Sorry I didn't find a petition.
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday June 9, 2013, 12:18 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Kit because you have done so within the last day.
 

Angelika R. (144)
Sunday June 9, 2013, 1:20 pm
No text at all on that website, don't know where you got it from..
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday June 9, 2013, 1:26 pm
Council for a Livable World's email (which I included in my comment) provided the link to this resource.
 

Angelika R. (144)
Sunday June 9, 2013, 2:05 pm
ok, thx. Obviously had Kit confused as well.
 

Jo S. (532)
Sunday June 9, 2013, 3:14 pm
WOW, thanks JL they are right in my backyard 90 miles away! Hot stuff, I can't believe it, thanks so much for the info!
Noted & shared.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday June 9, 2013, 4:52 pm
It's missing a lot of nuclear support-institutions. I live literally next door to a research-university with a nuclear engineering-program. There is a support-institution a couple blocks from me. I am glad to see a lot o research-sites, though.

The reasoning behind the military sites is pretty abstract, but valid. The problem is that it's much, much easier to gear down for modern warfare than it would be to gear up for a new conventional war, should one occur. Part of the job of the military is to be ready in case a new threat arises, and if the U.S. cuts down its nuclear deterrent too much, with the global rise of interceptor-programs, it would have to rebuild that deterrent quickly should a threat arise. If that's even possible, it would be prohibitively expensive. Another odd problem is testing: The real U.S. nuclear deterrent probably involves a lot fewer missiles than are listed because, without nuclear testing for many years, we don't know how many of them really work. If the U.S. reduces its number of weapons to the number it actually needs to overcome an interception-program and deter an attack, deterrence may fail because nobody else would believe that all of the U.S.'s missiles actually work. If the U.S. permitted renewed tests, even for a little while, while the tests themselves would be expensive, it could probably afford a smaller and overall cheaper arsenal.
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday June 9, 2013, 9:07 pm
Except for the minor inconvenience of total contamination of whatever area a test is done in harming all that lives in the area and the land for decades? Most would deem such a plan irresponsible and unjustifiable.
 

Lynn D. (0)
Sunday June 9, 2013, 9:50 pm
Thank you!
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday June 9, 2013, 10:02 pm
You are welcome Lynn!
 

Robert K. (31)
Monday June 10, 2013, 5:39 am
When I was in the Army, before I got stupid and reenlisted for the infantry in a fit of misguided patriotism, I was a missile and radar repairman at Fort MacArthur in San Pedro CA. We kept dozens of nuclear warheads in the missile shop with just a chain link fence between us and the town. We weren't even armed, so we kept clubs to beat off any attackers who might have wanted to steal the warheads.

God! I hope security is better now than it was in the late 50s.
 

paul m. (93)
Monday June 10, 2013, 6:35 am

Who knows ..nobody's going to tell us...!!
 

Theodore Shayne (56)
Monday June 10, 2013, 8:10 am
Where oh where can the Canadian sites be???
 

Theodore Shayne (56)
Monday June 10, 2013, 8:13 am
Nah, we don't have any.
 

Nancy M. (202)
Monday June 10, 2013, 10:33 am
There used to be in the area a grew up , but no longer. They closed.
 

JL A. (276)
Monday June 10, 2013, 10:52 am
You cannot currently send a star to Nancy because you have done so within the last day
 

Ryan Yehling (49)
Monday June 10, 2013, 12:52 pm
Thanks for sharing!
 

JL A. (276)
Monday June 10, 2013, 12:56 pm
You are welcome Ryan!
 

Michael Kirkby (86)
Monday June 10, 2013, 2:10 pm
None in Canada but North Dakota isn't that far away.
 

JL A. (276)
Monday June 10, 2013, 2:35 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Michael because you have done so within the last day.
 

Mitchell D. (132)
Tuesday June 11, 2013, 7:54 am
"Bloated" munitions contractors, did you say?
It's not that they do not know that the Cold War is over, it's that they can keep making obscene amounts of money out of taxpayer funds, and than support the congress people who, in turn, support them.
This is, almost certainly, the same crew that the NRA lobbies for.
The NRA does not give a rotten rat's ass about the 2nd amendment, it is just a convenient excuse that too much of the public buys into.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

JL A.

JL A.
JL's contributions:
Stories noted recently: 389
Stories submitted: 4134
Front Page stories: 1929




 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.