New Nuke Warhead - Political Forum

CHUQ · #1 (**permalink**) 01-08-2007, 08:14 AM

WASHINGTON: The United States is expected to announce next week a major step forward in the building of the country’s first new nuclear warhead in nearly two decades, The New York Times reported on its website Saturday.

The newspaper said the US government would propose combining elements of competing designs from two weapons laboratories in an approach that some experts argue is untested and risky.

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, the report said.

The announcement, to be made by the interagency Nuclear Weapons Council, avoids making a choice between the two designs for a new weapon, called the Reliable Replacement Warhead, which at first would be mounted on submarine-launched missiles, The Times said.

The News - International

Why?

Brother Oz · #2 (**permalink**) 01-08-2007, 09:13 AM

As signatories to the Non-proliferation Treaty, the START I and II treaties, and various others, hasn't the US promised to reduce its nuclear arsenal and eventually eliminate it all together?

CHUQ · #3 (**permalink**) 01-08-2007, 01:36 PM

So the new nuke is more effective than the old ones? Again why? Is the fact that the old one is capable of destroying, whatever it is it will destroy good enough? There must be improvements on the destruction power of a nuke?

francois60 · #4 (**permalink**) 01-08-2007, 03:27 PM

Why?

Because the weapons we have now are old, that's why.

As signatories to the Non-proliferation Treaty, the START I and II treaties, and various others, hasn't the US promised to reduce its nuclear arsenal and eventually eliminate it all together?

We have. And under those treaties, we are allowed to modernize, as long as the yield and total number of warheads stays the same.

CHUQ · #5 (**permalink**) 01-08-2007, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Again, from your article:

"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, the report said."

I guess the part about the terrorist makes it more palatable, at least for some.

francois60 · #6 (**permalink**) 01-08-2007, 09:07 PM

Why would this be unpalatable? Our nukes are in danger of becoming obsolete. Do you want us to unilaterally disarm by letting our arsenal go to pot?

lordoftheworld · #7 (**permalink**) 01-09-2007, 12:47 PM

This kind of crooses over into another fourm on this site where i read about the new ballistic missle base the US is pushing for or whatever in Europe by Russia. Is this what this new nuke warhead is really for, if need be we can blow up the whole world up starting over in the middle east and Europe?

And what will happen to all the old nuke warheads that are being "replaced." Are they going to be destroyed? I'm sure they can do that without detonating them, but isn't it risky no matter? Are we just going to lock them away where eventually when forgotten Bush and co. can sell them to other countries to make more money? His family has had no problems making money off our enemies in the past. I'm talking about his grandfather and his banking company that sold goods to the Nazi's during WW2.

lordoftheworld · #8 (**permalink**) 01-09-2007, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by francois60

Why?

Because the weapons we have now are old, that's why.

As signatories to the Non-proliferation Treaty, the START I and II treaties, and various others, hasn't the US promised to reduce its nuclear arsenal and eventually eliminate it all together?

We have. And under those treaties, we are allowed to modernize, as long as the yield and total number of warheads stays the same.

I'm just curious if i'm the only person here who believes the # of US nukes is definantly higher than the number we say we have?

francois60 · #9 (**permalink**) 01-09-2007, 01:39 PM

Could be. I don't think either we or Russia bother to verify anymore. But it's certainly not at Cold War levels.

francois60 · #10 (**permalink**) 01-09-2007, 01:40 PM

And what will happen to all the old nuke warheads that are being "replaced." Are they going to be destroyed? I'm sure they can do that without detonating them

Heh. A recent news story reported that we almost did detonate a nuke while dismantling it for destruction last year.