Talk:Renovation of the nuclear weapon arsenal of the United States

RT

There had been much discussion over RT as Reliable source:

• June 2014
• January 2013
• Many more
• Still more

Both resulting in unknown result. But being a news channel, it could be reliable and a good one(IMO). - The Herald (here I am) 15:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

More and more, RT has become like Pravda from the Soviet days, the propaganda arm of the state. Its claims should be assumed to be biased and factually questionable. NPguy (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Modernization does not contradict Obama's Prague agenda

While there may be a perception that modernization of the U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure is a reversal of President Obama's disarmament agenda as set out in his 2009 Prague speech, in fact it is completely consistent with - and was explicitly foreshadowed in - that speech. Two relevant quotes:

This goal will not be reached quickly, perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence.

Make no mistake, as long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure, and effective arsenal to deter any adversary and guarantee that defense to our allies, ... .

When?

In its current form, the article does not provide a clear timeline. It states in the beginning (boldface added here):

Facilities for maintenance and refurbishment of U.S. nuclear weapons became dilapidated after the end of the Cold War with the Soviet Union.[1] The United States planned to spend about a trillion dollars over thirty years to rectify this shortfall, which some saw as a reversal from President Barack Obama's 2009 Prague speech that laid out his agenda for further nuclear disarmament, for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.

When exactly did the US plan to spend a trillion dollars, over which thirty years? I understand it's at some point after 2009, but when did it actually start? (Or did it not start? Was it only planned?) 2A02:8109:9340:112C:4D90:AA0F:76DD:5012 (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this article needed?

This seems like a very narrow and particular topic that seeks to define its scope in an agenda-driven way. A neutral formulation might be "post-Cold War evolution of U.S. nuclear forces." This would naturally address the aging of those forces and treat the question of whether that is a problem and how to address it in a a well-defined context, rather than focus on a policy-laden question without a clear antecedent. NPguy (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is this page even existed? No purpose for this at all. Nuclear weapons are part of technology domain where technology continues to evolve with time passes. This page is nothing but agenda-drive page with political motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2D83:EA00:BCA7:D52D:C65:AE2D (talk) 08:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The renovation program was started by President Obama and continued under President Trump. The Doomsday Clock now stands at at its closest ever to midnight, having clicked closer in 2020, and so the topic hasn't gone away. The next milestone is likely to be a Nuclear Posture Review by the incoming Biden administration. Will there be a change in the big ticket items of its triad – the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent; the Columbia-class submarine and the B-21? And what about the new United States Space Force? We shall see... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)