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.

 

U.S. building another type of nuclear bomb

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I was reading the Columbus Dispatch today and was shocked to read the following story. I am not for the testing of nuclear weapons for the ovbious reasons to the enviornment. however I am also a little concerned with the arrogance that goes into thinking we don't need to test these weapons at all. The delivery system we have now has been tested and we know it will at least blow up our enemies and hopefully not us at launch, but this in my opinion is just scarry. I am also against building new ones in that how many times or ways do we really need to blow up the world, but that said, here is the article.

The Columbus Dispatch Nation and World Saturday April 9, 2005 Page A5

Nuclear - bomb redesign
A senior official announced the the United States has plans to develop nuclear weapons that can be produced easily, WITHOUT TESTING (my caps) Linton Brooks, administrator of the Energy Department's National Security Administration, revealed the "reliable replacement warhead" could be ready for deployment as soon as 2012. The new warhead would replace the aging arsenal of W-76 nuclear bombs that were designed in the 1970's. Brooks report to a Senate Armed Forces subcommittee said the bombs would be built with "more enviornmentally benign materials" whose safety and reliability could be assured with the highest confidence, WITHOUT NUCLEAR TESTING (my caps) for as long as the United States requires nuclear forces.

[edit on 9-4-2005 by janesquest]

[edit on 9-4-2005 by janesquest]




posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Well you don't want them to test the nukes but you want them to be safe?
So which one is it? And new Nukes are necessary because age does take a toll even on nuclear warheads.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
What's the point of designing even more nukes? I thought the US already has enough nukes to blow the whole planet up several times? Ain't that enough? If they're fighting against space aliens living on a planet several times bigger than the Earth then I'd understand



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
The point is our current arsenal is deterating and we dont test nukes anymore.
I highly doubt they can gurantee that these will be safe and effective without testing.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   
For every new nuke the U.S would make, it will dismantle at least one old one.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
LOL Humanity's continuing obsession with destroying itself


I really don't see a need for a new type of nuke. The weakest nuke ALWAYS does the job.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I have been following this issue for some time. First with the supercomputers of today, the designers can predict with the accuracy needed the yield of a nuclear weapon. That is one of the principal reasons for export controls on powerful computer systems. Most of the tests done in the recent past were to ensure reliability as the weapons age. I do not for a moment believe that our capability has in any way degraded in any measurable sense.

Second, some ofthe new weapons being contemplated are designed to be lower yield and in that sense more useable. Bunker busters and such. That scares me a little.

I don't ever want to see another city destroyed by nuclear weapons, and I don't believe that the newer designs would be used in that way. Besides, the sad fact of the matter is that the next city to be nuked won't be hit by an identifiable government......let alone ours.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
People have to understand we are destroying our ageing nukes and replacing them with newer one, which are lower in yield but more accurate and precise. So were not build more nukes were just replacing existing one with newer nukes. And I’m glad they have started developing small tactical nukes such as bunker busting nukes and small yield nukes on missiles.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Nukes are like any other piece of equipment. They do not last forever. You have to build new ones to keep up the numbers.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 03:26 AM
link   
`bunker buster` nukes - is somewhat of a mis nomer - an underground shot @ 200 feet will still breach the surface.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Every nuclear power is engaged with designing and producing new warheads, why should the US be held to a different standard ?



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Number of nukes the U.S makes (and can make) every year = 0

Number of nukes Russia makes every year = 1,000



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 01:15 AM
link   
No one likes nukes; the basic idea just is, if your potential enemy has the ability to blow you up, you want the enemy to be aware of total destruction in return.

That is the only reason countries like North Korea want nukes; so they can say, "Oh, yeah, mighty United States, don't you mess with us now, cuz we can blow one of your cities sky-high as well," yada yada yada.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 05:24 AM
link   
umm. north korea needs nukes. its not reported in the media but north korea wll give up its nuke program if america signs a peace treaty.

go in north korean shoes isolated by america still technically at war and threats of japan rearming. do just think like a american in this issue think like a north korean



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   
And why is th eUS not signing this peace treaty then??..
All the americans are worried about in the case of NK are the nukes..
There's aloophole in that logic...



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   


Number of nukes the U.S makes (and can make) every year = 0

Number of nukes Russia makes every year = 1,000




Source?
No offense, but I think you're a bonehead....

[edit on 5-5-2005 by Macuser]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   
that's great. we will design a new nuke that does't require testing and the technology will fall into the wrong hands and we won't know what other countries or terror organizations are up to because they won't need to test the new weapon.

those tests are a helpful indicator that someone is building something they shouldn't be building.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
that's great. we will design a new nuke that does't require testing and the technology will fall into the wrong hands and we won't know what other countries or terror organizations are up to because they won't need to test the new weapon.

those tests are a helpful indicator that someone is building something they shouldn't be building.


You need to understand the technology and mathematics involved in being able to design reliable nuclear weapons without testing.
There are several things needed in order to do this, which at the moment the US is only able to acomplish.

  • 1. Massively paralled supercomputing, with the requisite programming to be able to use this power.

  • 2. Knowlege of the shock physics algorithms used to validate and test a simulated design. This knowlege can only be obtained from the hundreds of live tests the US has conducted over the last 50 years. These codes are even more closely guarded than nuclear weapons designs.
    PS. An interesting note - When comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 smashed into Jupiter, Los Alomos scientists were keen to see if the explosions coincided with the size predicted by their shock physics codes


Anyway thse new designs will so advanced that they would only be able to be produced by a few countries if any.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Macuser


Number of nukes the U.S makes (and can make) every year = 0

Number of nukes Russia makes every year = 1,000




Source?
No offense, but I think you're a bonehead....

[edit on 5-5-2005 by Macuser]


PBS and the Congress of the United States via C-Span.

[edit on 5-5-2005 by NWguy83]



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Oye.. what the...??

What good is the NPT and CTBT then??!!




top topics



 
0

log in

join