Twitter | Search | |
Kelsey D. Nuclear Aftermatherton
If I'm reading this right, the cost is roughly 1/11th of the Pentagon's annual budget, not counting the separate Overseas Contingency Operations fund.
Reply Retweet Like More
Martin “Spooky Nuclear War” Pfeiffer (⧖) 🏳️‍🌈 Aug 1
Replying to @AthertonKD
Why, that will be about what we spend on nuclear weapons a year in the 2020s!
Reply Retweet Like
Kelsey D. Nuclear Aftermatherton Aug 1
Replying to @NuclearAnthro
$55 billion: enough to preserve the capacity to start an apocalypse, enough to fund the transition away from one
Reply Retweet Like
Peter Flynn Aug 2
Replying to @AthertonKD
A tenth of the Pentagon's budget sounds like excellent value for money to me.
Reply Retweet Like
David Riordan Aug 1
Replying to @AthertonKD
I see the discretionary wall scotus case as a way to get this policy through
Reply Retweet Like
barry levine Aug 3
Replying to @AthertonKD @cydharrell
Less than a third of what we've already spent on two pointless (and ongoing) war/occupation efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq
Reply Retweet Like
R. S. Aug 1
Replying to @AthertonKD @pareene
That number is ridiculous. I did not pay $5 to read the paper, but.....around 1.5 trillion? No. Wayyyyyyyy too low
Reply Retweet Like
⬤ Wolf "I am just a bear" Baginski Aug 2
Taking until 2050 is starting to look way too slow. but as a comparison, it works. Dealing with Climate Change, just what we're already seeing, is certainly comparable with a World War, but there are pay-backs from power stations.
Reply Retweet Like
Dogging Bork Aug 2
Replying to @AthertonKD @MrJonCryer
Net of the cost of not building alternatives.
Reply Retweet Like
jennifer Aug 3
We still don't have appropriate storage options for nights/no wind days.
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Blapple Aug 1
Replying to @AthertonKD @bad_takes
Whoa who. Calm down.
Reply Retweet Like
BeanePod Aug 1
Replying to @AthertonKD @MrJonCryer
oh hi David, have you met my friend inconvenient facts?
Reply Retweet Like