Defense Spending

U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)News Release
http://www.dod.gov/releases/2005/nr20050815-4427.html

SARs summarize the latest estimates of cost, schedule, and technical status. These reports are prepared annually in conjunction with the President's budget. Subsequent quarterly exception reports are required only for those programs experiencing unit cost increases of at least 15 percent or schedule delays of at least six months. Quarterly SARs are also submitted for initial reports, final reports, and for programs that are rebaselined at major milestone decisions.

December 2004 (88 programs) $ 1,472,184.3 estimated Millions
June 2005 (85 programs) $1,474,049.4 estimated Millions

We are not technically at War with Anyone, and the Combat losses We suffer come from the same old Combat patrolling of soldiers in the field, which all the fancy gadgetry cannot alter.

What are the root causes of the huge expenditure?


Top Ten Department of Energy Radioactive Pork Projects in the 2006 Budget: Wasteful and Dangerous
August 2005
http://ananuclear.org/topten2005.html

Summary
This report identifies seven nuclear weapons and three nuclear energy programs in the Department of EnergyÂ’s (DOEÂ’s) Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 requested budget that are wasteful and deserve cutting or outright elimination. Cutting them would result in immediate savings of more than $1.8 billion. These cuts are a step in the right direction to reduce federal deficits and form the basis for better nuclear policy.

1. Life Extension Programs
FY 2006 Budget $348.3 million
$1.49 billion through 2010
2. The Reliable Replacement Warhead
FY 2006 Budget $9.35 million
$97 million through 2010
(both redundant under the Stockpile Systems Programs).
3. Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator
FY 2006 Budget $8.5 million (DOE & DOD)
FY 2007 $14 million (DOE alone)
(used only to kill the Enemy, as the destruction would desolate the area after; it could not be used around any Population center, and American Troops would have to take great risks to assure the Bomb did the job and took out the Enemy)
4. Modern Pit Facility
FY 2006 Budget $7.69 million
$125.8 million through 2010
(eventual Cost $4bn and contamination of facility disposal Costs simply to rebuild plutonium triggers for old Warheads)
5. Enhanced Nuclear Test Readiness
FY 2006 Budget $25 million
$121.6 million through 2010
(simply to maintain capability to resume underground nuclear weapons testing currently banned by Treaty)
6. National Ignition Facility
FY 2006 Budget $142 million
$262 million through 2010
(Sc-fi giant Laser program to protect the Nuclear Stockpile. Would not negate current Security Costs, simply another Toy to play with.)
7. Tritium
FY 2006 Budget $87.5 million
$448.6 million through 2010
(stuff to make nuclear warheads destroy a greater area, 10 mile circumference not enough)
8. Plutonium Fuel Fabrication Facility (MOX)
FY 2006 Budget $338.5 million
( the Plutonium fuel manufacturing is actually beneficial, though they are right about canceling current levels of Weapons Grade plutonium manufacture)
9. Yucca Mountain
FY 2006 Budget $651.4 million
(must continue as on-Site storage not an Option, but Transport still unreliable, and Yucca Mountain is an environmental Joke)
10. Nuclear Energy Revival
FY2006 Budget $191 million
(This is the only Sure way to eliminate contamination, and literally, not enough is spent on it)

The DoD currently has (One Privileged Source) who states there are 314 of such Programs; at least half of which should be canceled. The Game Plan should be to inform the DoD (We are talking of the U.S. Congress here backed by the President) that the Defense Budget must come in under one trillion dollars. Programs need be shut down, Expenditure levels must be reduced for a slower rate of development, and the basic Maintenance programs for Troops in the field must be on Schedule. lgl