It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: US Investigates New Nuclear Arms Tech Feasibility

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   
external imageThe US Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration has launched a study to determine the feasibility of developing nuclear weapons that can be produced without testing. The study is part of a Congress-led investigation into ways to handle the problem of the United States' ageing nuclear weapons stockpiles. The department's administration projects that such warheads could be manufactured using more readily available and "environmentally friendly" materials, and may be in production by 2012.
 



www.abc.net.au
Linton Brooks, administrator of the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration, revealed the program in a written statement for a Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing under the Senate Arms Services

"With the support of Congress, we are beginning a program... to
understand whether... we could provide replacements for existing stockpile weapons that could be easily manufactured with more readily available and more environmentally benign materials, and whose safety and reliability could be assured with highest confidence, without nuclear testing, for as long as the United States requires nuclear forces," he said

Mr Brooks said many of the existing nuclear arms under "legacy" stockpile are "irrelevant and inadequate" to meet current military needs and to deal with new threats because they were designed to meet the requirements of the Cold War era.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Efforts are being stepped up in the search for ways to upgrade the ageing US nuclear arsenal of approximately 10,000 warheads. Development of nuclear weapons that do not require testing would neatly sidestep the restrictions imposed by the US government's signing of the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Multi-billion dollar efforts such as these cause US government accusations of nuclear weapons development levelled at other nations to ring somewhat hollow.

Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (Full Text) - .pdf

Related News Links:
www.sundaytimes.co.za
www.atsnn.com

[edit on 2005/4/5 by wecomeinpeace]

[edit on 2005/4/5 by wecomeinpeace]

[edit on 2005/4/5 by wecomeinpeace]




posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   


and
..."environmentally friendly" nukes. Priceless.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Eventually we will have to keep a small arsenal of weapons because other counties have them. The ones we have will not last forever, but maybe the material can be recycled, and only build a minimum amount. We definitely do not need 10,000 warheads. We invaded Iraq on the premiss of WMD, now I say lets follow the same rules we impose on other countries.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   


and
..."environmentally friendly" nukes. Priceless.


What is so funny and priceless? They said "environmentally friendly" materials not nukes.



We definitely do not need 10,000 warheads. We invaded Iraq on the premiss of WMD, now I say lets follow the same rules we impose on other countries.


I agree with you. But then again.. I don't want America to be the only one with no more nukes and other countries lieing about how they destroyed theirs or developing them in secret.



Efforts are being stepped up in the search for ways to upgrade the ageing US nuclear arsenal of approximately 10,000 warheads. Development of nuclear weapons that do not require testing would neatly sidestep the restrictions imposed by the US government's signing of the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty


Testing would neatly sidestep the restrictions imposed by the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty? Where would the military test them? Without bothering anyone?



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by andpau66
Testing would neatly sidestep the restrictions imposed by the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty? Where would the military test them? Without bothering anyone?


I'm sorry, can you please rephrase your question? I'm not sure exactly what it is that you are asking.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I hate it how the Environment is an excuse for everything, a bit of political and social doublespeak to excuse and rationalize everything.

If you want to keep someone from building something, you claim environmental reasons to block it. If you have objections to a business or a philosophy, use the name of the Holy Environment to justify anything. At first this was a preferred tactic of the Left, but now even the military is doing it. Honesty out the window, because that doesn't emtionally sway people.

The real reason is, that city-busters are useless. Smaller weapons that can be deployed tactically are what the military needs and can use. Smaller weapons would produce reduced fallout and be more efficient in their conversion of nuclear mass. But it's hard for congresscritter bean counters , most of whom were attorneys and businessmen and never soldiers, to understand the difference, they see the number of warheads and that's their bottom line.

Too bad there's no good way to use these-they'd make a great booster for a Project Orion craft:

www.answers.com...;jsessionid=9tmpy0izj706?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Project+Orion&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc02b

but due to concerns from environmentalists (there's that Environment again) and non-proliferation folks, and "safety" people, we'll just dismantle them, and let the plutonium sit in barrels somewher until it leaks out and causes worse damage.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
My understanding is that it's all about having a very reliable software model of the nuclear device and all the materials and components in it. If you trust your model, you don't have to test the device. As simple as that. Kinda makes sense.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 07:20 PM
link   
SO they are planning to depend completelly on computer modelling and design to create the next generation of nukes?
I am sure the processing power is there but still it would be nice to know something works for sure.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwatkins
Eventually we will have to keep a small arsenal of weapons because other counties have them. The ones we have will not last forever, but maybe the material can be recycled, and only build a minimum amount. We definitely do not need 10,000 warheads. We invaded Iraq on the premiss of WMD, now I say lets follow the same rules we impose on other countries.


All a country has to do to be able to have WMD is follow the rules. Why do you think the United States doesnt invade Britain, France, China or any of the other nuclear states? Because theyve followed the rules imposed to allow them to have nuclear weapons. If you do not follow the rules you do not get to have "legal" nuclear weapons.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join