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 Announces New Nuclear Weapons Plan

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   
The Bush Administration unveiled a new project to upgrade and rebuild its nuclear arsenal with plans for over 100 bombs per year until 2022. This will also mean changes in the way plutonium is stored and handled so as to make it more secure. The plan faces criticism from various sources, including those who will question whether the US is starting a new nuclear arms race.

 



www.latimes.com
The Bush administration Wednesday unveiled a blueprint for rebuilding the nation's decrepit nuclear weapons complex, including restoration of a large-scale bomb manufacturing capacity.

The plan calls for the most sweeping realignment and modernization of the nation's massive system of laboratories and factories for nuclear bombs since the end of the Cold War.

Until now, the nation has depended on carefully maintaining aging bombs produced during the Cold War arms race, some several decades old. The administration, however, wants the capability to turn out 125 new nuclear bombs per year by 2022, as the Pentagon retires older bombs that it says will no longer be reliable or safe.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This plan comes as a shock to me.
With all the talk about North Korea, Iran and other small countries and their nuclear desires, I did not expect the US to come out and say, hey, we're going to build 125 of these babies a year for the next sixteen or so years.
I can almost hear the uproar now. Except, oddly enough, you don't find many sources for this story. The LA Times and some Aussie papers?

I do applaud the idea to rearrange the storage of plutonium into one place and to make it as secure as possible.
I also encourage readers to look over the editorial at OpEd.com


Related News Links:
www.smh.com.au
www.opednews.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:

Who could effectively win in a nuclear war. US or Russia.

[edit on 6-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   
When I saw this story, I thought there would be some strong feelings one way or another about the US commencing to rebuild its nuclear arsenal.
With all that is going on in the Middle East and North Korea, Russia and China, I thought people would have something to say about the US building thousands of NEW nukes.
But, then the MSM is curiously silent about this subject too.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
im stunned....i just dont get it.

i guess maybe that the reason for doing the nuclear simulation in the nevada desert. they plan on building and possibly using these things? this is really like wow. im still trying to come to grips with the fact we are doing this. doesnt this break some sort of laws in the nuclear nonproliferation treaty? *starts search for the document* i will be back like the terminator because this just cant be legal.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   
From a defence standpoint it's not a bad idea. A lot of the nuclear arsenal is getting old and obselete. So if we want to maintain security we'll need to replace bombs that are becoming unreliable and possibly dangerous.

I don't think that this is an attempt to actually expand our arsenal (which I wouldn't mind doing actually), but merely an attempt to maintain it's current size.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Good timing... great timing? Hmmm. They'll need some fresh stuff to replace that which may be expended in the not too distant future. What was that old Flock of Seagulls tune... "I" something or other... never mind.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   
nope nothing, i cant find anything in the Nonproliferation Treaty that says countries with nuclear weapons cant make more nuclear weapons as they please. i also noticed that in order for any rule to be added to the treaty all nuclear owning countries must agree on it even if all the other countries want it done. ultimately countries with nuclear weapons decided they didnt want to make a rule that would stop THEM from making more, just all other countries that didnt already have them.

well, this just pisses me off beyond a doubt.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by CyberDude78
From a defence standpoint it's not a bad idea. A lot of the nuclear arsenal is getting old and obselete. So if we want to maintain security we'll need to replace bombs that are becoming unreliable and possibly dangerous.

I don't think that this is an attempt to actually expand our arsenal (which I wouldn't mind doing actually), but merely an attempt to maintain it's current size.


Who is we? Here in the US we spell defense as defense. The only people who spell defense as defence are the British.

This article is about the United States upgrading it's nuclear arsenal not about Britain.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Actually that's just a spelling error that I made.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   
All is forgiven just don't let it happen again.

You should fly the American flag in your signature for one week as an apology.



[edit on 6-4-2006 by ImplementOfWar]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
I wonder how long it will be before this get's to the mainstream news organisations like CNN.

I am totally adamantly and vehemently against this, we should be dismantling our nuclear weapons, not refurbishin our current ones and making more.



Also, Implementofwar, it's not just British people who spelll defence this way, I personally spell it that way whenever I use it, and no one's ever corrected me in school.

[edit on 4/6/2006 by iori_komei]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   
It's spelled defense.

Don't make excuses because your school doesn't know how to spell either. It is no wonder they say the average college student can't balance their own checkbook.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   
It can be spelled either way, not alot of people really have a problem with it, nor really care.

To me it does'nt look right spelled with an "S".

Also, I'm in High School, and I can balance a check book.

[edit on 4/7/2006 by iori_komei]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Why cannot the US maintain its nuclear arsenal? I dont understand where people think that we should be dismantling them, with countrie like Russia, China, and now Iran pursuing nuclear weapons (russia has recently imployed a new mobile ballistic missile) the US needs to keep its stockpile fresh, in fact underground nuclear testing needs to be resumed.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Er. Russia is'nt a nuclear new comer.
Atleast that's what I think you just implyed.

Russia and the U.S. have more than 80% of the world's nuclear weapons.
Also, both countries signed a treaty to dismantle there nuclear weapons.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   
As the current nuclear weapons get older, the cores start to degrade, and the chances of them working if we need them to goes way down. Do we really want to be the only kid on the block with nuclear weapons that may or may not work if we really need them to?

Russia and the US signed a treaty to dismantle SOME of their nuclear arsenal. Neither country is going to be willing to give up the nuclear option until ALL countries give it up. It's a simple matter of security.

[edit on 4/7/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   


Er. Russia is'nt a nuclear new comer.
Atleast that's what I think you just implyed.


neither is the US



Russia and the U.S. have more than 80% of the world's nuclear weapons.
Also, both countries signed a treaty to dismantle there nuclear weapons.


What treaty? we agreed on Strategic Arms limitations treaties (SALT) and we agreed on REDUCING not dismantling our nuclear arsenals.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Ok, right I really need to have more clarity when posting.

I' did'nt mean that we signed a treaty to get rid of all our nukes, rather to get rid of some, so we don't have enough to blow ourselves up a million times over.


I suppose I'm not as against replacing the aging ones we have, what I am against is making more, thusly increasing our nuclear arsenal.


I mean think about it, apart from the U.S and Rusia, if you put all the countries that have nukes together and add the total up, it's like 398 or somewhere around there.

Do we really need thousands of nuclear weapons against such a small number?



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Interesting news.

I was just reading something on the US-India Nuclear Deal about the dangers of proliferation and then we have this. Gives some insight into the administrations future policy in this regard.

Personally, I would think that the relics of the Cold war are of little importance today even in regards to China. What the need of the hour is smaller, cleaner and more sophisticated nuclear devices. Yes, we already have the AGM-129 but it is still nearly a decade old and thus still not as clean as can be.
This deal apart from other strategic maneuverings would imply that the US is getting ready for yet another era of skirmishes and tension, at least thats what the Bush administrations has planned.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Last thing we need is more Nuclear Weapons, Britian currently wants to upgrade our Nuclear defence and i wouldn't be suprised if the Russian have added afew more toys to its toybox..



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 06:43 AM
link   
This is a very interesting read. These aren't going to be in addition to the weapons we have now, they're going to almost completely replace the weapons we have now. They currently have a total of roughly 6000 warheads in the active and inactive piles. They're trying to create a force of 17-2200 warheads. However the older warheads have to be replaced because as they age, they develop a helium buildup (IIRC) in the tritium whch can cause a fizzle if we need to use them. These weapons aren't designed to sit for 15-20 years or more.

www.globalsecurity.org...



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join