U.S. Selecting Hybrid Design for Warheads (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

Problem is, the design has never been tested. Another problem is that, in order to reliably deploy them, we will have to end our moratorium on underground testing.

The way I see it, our present arsenal is outdated, and needs to be replaced. So lets do the underground tests that are required. Would hate to see America caught with her pants down because her nukes don't work.

The cost? About 100 billion, which is about the same as one year of keeping our troops in Iraq. It is doable.

So, should we, or shouldn't we. My vote is yes, lets do it, but make damn sure it works before we put them in the field.

 

[AndrewC]

I say no. We should not be designing new nuclear weapons. We should be destroying the ones we already have. Nuclear weapons do not benefit the majority of the citizens of this country. In fact they threaten peaceful people all around the world. The idea of nuclear arms as a deterrent is just ridiculous. No, no, no, no, no, no... no.

 

[Goobieman]

There's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with testing nuclear weapons, especially underground. Given that we need a reliable nuclear stockpile, live-fire testing new warhead designs is necessary.

Now, we -do- have the ability to rleiably and accurately simulate the physics package of nucleat warheads, and its my understanding that these simulations produce results very close to real-world detonations, but they -are- only simulations.

 

[Goobieman]

I say no. We should not be designing new nuclear weapons. We should be destroying the ones we already have. Nuclear weapons do not benefit the majority of the citizens of this country.

Our nuclear weapons are the only thing that kept the people of this country aloive for over 50 years, and are the only thing that -will- keep our people alive in the future, should relations with other nuclear powers turn sour.

 

[AndrewC]

Our nuclear weapons are the only thing that kept the people of this country aloive for over 50 years, and are the only thing that -will- keep our people alive in the future, should relations with other nuclear powers turn sour.

What a bunch of crap. Many nations do not have, nor do they seek, nuclear weapons. Yet they've survived. Our nuclear weapons are a threat to ourselves and everyone else in the world. How many times have we come close to disaster because of nuclear weapons. It only takes one mistake and America is gone. Why would you take that chance?

I believe that America will always be. Not because of its weapons or technology, but because of its people. If you feel we need WMD to stay a viable nation. Then you need to do some soul searching and try to find out what America is all about. We can coexist with the world. We can prosper and remain free. We can do all this without possessing weapons that destroy nations and their people.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

What a bunch of crap. Many nations do not have, nor do they seek, nuclear weapons.

Have a gander at this.

Iran's Nuclear Program: 20 Years of Deceit - Newsweek: World News - MSNBC.com

 

[Goobieman]

What a bunch of crap. Many nations do not have, nor do they seek, nuclear weapons. Yet they've survived.

Those nations -- especially those in Western Europe -- survived because we protected them with our weapons. The use of nukes in defending Europe was a well-known quantity, and our willingness to excalate to a general exchange if necessary was the cornerstone fo the MAD doctrine. MAD, and MAD alone kept nucelar war from happening.

Our nuclear weapons are a threat to ourselves and everyone else in the world.

Of course they are. Thats why we have them, and what's why we'll hopefully never have to use them.

How many times have we come close to disaster because of nuclear weapons. It only takes one mistake and America is gone. Why would you take that chance?

Because to NOT take that chance means that it WILL happen.

If you're not wiulling to accept the idea that the only thing that keps the USSR (and to a lesser extent, the PRC) from using their nulkes on us was the factr that we had nukes with wich we woulld retalliate, then you simply arent capable of having this concversations.

And if you think that a future cold-war style face-off with another nuclear power isn't possible, then you're so far removed from reality that you simply cannot be helped.

If you feel we need WMD to stay a viable nation. Then you need to do some soul searching and try to find out what America is all about.

Tell me:
If we didn't have nukes, what would stop the USSR and/or PRC from wiping us out? What will stop a future hostile nuclear power from doing so?

 

[jujuman13]

I believe that during the cold war, the only reason it did not become a hot war was because both sides had nuclear weapons as well as the required method of delivery.
It is commonly thought that now Communism has been defeated, we are all safe from being attacked by those we held formerly to be our opponents, namely China and Russia.
I have since the end of the cold war, been very fearful of ending what was in essence the 'Status Quo', we are nowadays in a very peculiar situation.
The Planet is seemingly running short of essential minerals and energy sources, while at the same time countries that hereto were not consumers are now becoming consumers of these resources.
Clearly there will not always be sufficient resources for every country to be able to satisfy their own demands as well as permit them to export products manufactured by using these resources.
So in my view it will be almost inevitable that there will be further instabilities within our communities.
Undesirable though it may be, we will need to have some type of assured method of deterence, for this the Nuclear option of "MAD" seems to be an admirable and already in existance option.
Both China and Russia have continued their war against the west in spite of the west including them within our trading system, both these countries have and continue to spy on our Military as well as Industrial infrastructure, often with little to no seeming objection from ourselves, both these two powers have boosted their defence spending by around 17% of their respective GDP on a year on year basis, it would seem to me that rather than submitting to live as peaceful communities, they are in fact in the process of gearing up to attack us if not as a physical fact, then almost certainly in an industrial manner, whereby they will sell us goods that we believe we need and thus drain us of our wealth, finally subjugating us as our own industrial might decreases and backing that up with the strength of their Industrial and Military might, as well as their control of the diminishing resources of the planet.
Naturally some folk would think I am merely being fanciful and scaremongering.
Others might see what is already happening and put 2 and 2 together.
On balance I believe we should retain our nuclear weapons and if need be augment these with new updated weapons.

 

[Morrow]

We don't need to test nuclear weapons to know they will work, in fact generally nuclear tests produce little information, or variation, that wasn't already calculated for. This is about as scientific as human beings can get, and it is actually pretty good.

I don't oppose the development or use of so called 'tactical' nuclear weapons. Any technology which can use used to support the military against other militaries, or used to strategically target enemy infrastructure, I’m for. Larger nuclear weapons are stupid, and mutually assured destruction doctrine is possibly the stupidest thing ever conceived, and I once saw a bicycle made to look like a carrot.

 

[RightinNYC]

U.S. moving to refurbish its nuclear arsenal - International Herald Tribune

Here's a story talking about this. To clear up a couple of misconceptions, its not making bigger nukes, or making more nukes. It's replacing the ones we have with newer, safer ones.

The new weapon would not add to but replace the nation's existing arsenal of aging warheads with a new generation meant to be sturdier, more reliable, safer from accidental detonation and more secure from theft by terrorists.

Administration officials and military officers like General James Cartwright, head of the Strategic Command, which controls the nation's nuclear arsenal, argue that because the United States provides a nuclear umbrella for so many allies, it is critical that its stockpile be as reliable as possible.

"We will not 'un-invent' nuclear weapons, and we will not walk away from the world," Cartwright said in an interview. "Right now, it is not the nation's position that zero is the answer to the size of our inventory."

He added: "So, if you are going to have these weapons, they should be safe, they should be able to be secured, and they should be reliable if used."

Sounds kind of like a reasoning that some people on the left used in supporting another controversial issue not so very long ago, doesn't it?

 

[AndrewC]

Those nations -- especially those in Western Europe -- survived because we protected them with our weapons. The use of nukes in defending Europe was a well-known quantity, and our willingness to excalate to a general exchange if necessary was the cornerstone fo the MAD doctrine. MAD, and MAD alone kept nucelar war from happening.

So our willingness to destroy nations "protected" others? Right. Our arms race with the USSR WAS the problem. There is no good ending for this type of action. You aren't saving anyone from anything. You are contributing to the problem, plain and simple.

Of course they are. Thats why we have them, and what's why we'll hopefully never have to use them.


Because to NOT take that chance means that it WILL happen.

If you're not wiulling to accept the idea that the only thing that keps the USSR (and to a lesser extent, the PRC) from using their nulkes on us was the factr that we had nukes with wich we woulld retalliate, then you simply arent capable of having this concversations.

And if you think that a future cold-war style face-off with another nuclear power isn't possible, then you're so far removed from reality that you simply cannot be helped.

There will always be risk as long as someone has nuclear weapons. However we must respect life and lead the way to disarmament. You are right that there will be another cold war style faceoff. It is happening right now and nothing good can come from it.

Have some backbone. Have a little faith in humanity. We can stand up against those who would destroy our way of life. We can do so without risking the accidental destruction of millions or billions of people. Nuclear weapons don't allow you to make mistakes. Therefore we can't continue to use them. The risk is to great.

Tell me:
If we didn't have nukes, what would stop the USSR and/or PRC from wiping us out? What will stop a future hostile nuclear power from doing so?

And what do you think the world's response would be? Would you want to live in a world after a large scale nuclear incident? What if we used nuclear weapons based on faulty intelligence. In doing so caused the death of millions of Americans. It can happen. We have come close to this scenario already. This is the true risk of nuclear weapons. Not someone's dream of world domination. To rule the world, someone will have to destroy it. If they are willing to do that. Then let them have it. Nothing worthwhile will be left anyway. However, if we were to cause that. To cause mass destruction in error. Why would you let that happen?

 

[Goobieman]

So our willingness to destroy nations "protected" others? Right. Our arms race with the USSR WAS the problem. There is no good ending for this type of action. You aren't saving anyone from anything. You are contributing to the problem, plain and simple.

Your argument here is based on the idea that had we not built nukes to deter the USSR, the USSR would not have built nukes that needed deterring. There's absolutely no way you can support that positoin, but if you want to try -- go ahead.

Yo're aslo arguing that US nukes did not keep the USSR from rolling over western Europe. If not the nukes, then what?

There will always be risk as long as someone has nuclear weapons. However we must respect life and lead the way to disarmament. You are right that there will be another cold war style faceoff. It is happening right now and nothing good can come from it.

Given that the only thing that will ultimately keep a cold war from becoming a hot war is deterrence, how can you argue that disarmament respscts life when all it leads to is a huge loss of it?

Have some backbone. Have a little faith in humanity. We can stand up against those who would destroy our way of life. We can do so without risking the accidental destruction of millions or billions of people.

How do you stop somone who has the mind to nuke you unless you can nuke him back?
Be specidic.

And what do you think the world's response would be?

You didnt answer the question.
If we didn't have nukes, what would stop the USSR and/or PRC from wiping us out?
What will stop a future hostile nuclear power from doing so?
Be specific.

 

[TheNextEra]

Conservative Mantra:

U.S. and allies making nukes: GOOD
Anyone that isn't a friend of the U.S. making Nukes: BAD

Logic may be there, but then so is hypocrisy.

 

[Goobieman]

Conservative Mantra:
U.S. and allies making nukes: GOOD
Anyone that isn't a friend of the U.S. making Nukes: BAD
Logic may be there, but then so is hypocrisy.

Liberal mantra:
If the US would just lay down and play nice, there would be no problems in the world.
:roll:

 

[faithful_servant]

I say no. We should not be designing new nuclear weapons. We should be destroying the ones we already have. Nuclear weapons do not benefit the majority of the citizens of this country. In fact they threaten peaceful people all around the world. The idea of nuclear arms as a deterrent is just ridiculous. No, no, no, no, no, no... no.

Really?? Do you think that a nuclear weapon placed in Mecca with the promise of it's detonation in the case of an Islamic terrorist using a nuclear weapon against anyone woul deter most terrorists from using a nuke. This would prevent at least an entire generation of Muslims from making the Hajj, so do you truly think that it wouldn't have a deterrent effect?

<to the nutballs who would take this out of context: No, I do not support doing this.>

 

[Goobieman]

<to the nutballs who would take this out of context: No, I do not support doing this.>

Oh, I dunno... might be some merit to the idea.