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.
Originally posted by grover
A few hundred is probably sufficent for our needs and damnit all things considered, thats still to many. These weapons were never intended for anything other than a final war, more to be used against populations instead of armies.
No ideology, no territory, no God is worth that.
Originally posted by IAF101
There are never too many nuclear weapons. There are old nuclear weapons that need replacing but never too many.
I would imagine most of these would be either neutron weapons or H-bombs which are much cleaner than their predecessors and much more directed and lethal .
Originally posted by grimreaper797
the mere idea you actually believe a nation with world wide nuclear capabilities can be "out gunned" in a nuclear war is beyond me completely.
No ideology, no territory, no God is worth that.
Freedom is.
Originally posted by IAF101If the US rapidly reduces its arsenal to say 500 or below, this would in a sense leave the US out-gunned say if there was a combined Russian and Chinese nuclear attack, for 200 nuclear weapons( which let us assume are mostly on as the W80 on ACM's) wouldn't enable the US to maintain credible MAD.
Originally posted by stumason
In this one sentence, you have shown you know naff all about nuclear weapons.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by MadScientist
In a nutshell, the defining technical characteristic of fourth-generation nuclear weapons is the triggering - by some advanced technology such as a superlaser, magnetic compression, antimatter, etc. - of a relatively small thermonuclear explosion in which a deuterium-tritium mixture is burnt in a device whose weight and size are not much larger than a few kilograms and litres. Since the yield of these warheads could go from a fraction of a ton to many tens of tons of high-explosive equivalent, their delivery by precision-guided munitions or other means will dramatically increase the fire-power of those who possess them - without crossing the threshold of using kiloton-to-megaton nuclear weapons, and therefore without breaking the taboo against the first-use of weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, since these new weapons will use no (or very little) fissionable materials, they will produce virtually no radioactive fallout. Their proponents will define them as "clean" nuclear weapons - and possibly draw a parallel between their battlefield use and the consequences of the expenditure of depleted uranium ammunition
Originally posted by IAF101
Originally posted by grover
No ideology, no territory, no God is worth that.
Freedom is.
Originally posted by Long Lance
Nukes decay and they need to be replaced, continually - if you wanna have them - so the real question is if this bill is a defacto expansion of the nuclear arsenal.
Let's hope it's not.
Originally posted by Flinx
Maintaining old nuclear weapons is one thing, but what I don't think alot of people get is that nuclear weapons aren't meant to be used... Why the hell would we need to expand our nuclear stockpile?
Why would we need to start underground testing again?
Originally posted by Aelita
Flinx, if you endeavour to read this thread and follow links provided, it'll become clear that it's more about replacing the old nuclear arcenal rather than growing it. Even cars age when they sit unused and such cars also need replacement just in case your neighbor wonders if your car is still in a running condition.
Unless we decide to get rid of all nukes (which we won't for the time being), we need more secure, reliable, longer shell-life devices. The technology from the 60s is plain obsolete. How difficult is that to understand?
Originally posted by Flinx
What's difficult to understand is why would need to start underground testing again to make sure that the bombs explode.
It's completely uneccesary. You can maintain the old nuclear arsenal and still be assured that the bombs will work if for some reason we need to use them.
What happens to the explosives that trigger the fission stage? Over the years? When exposed to radiation as well as natural chemical processes? Do you know that electronics can age as well? You don't? Mabe you could stop making nonchalant statements about this piece of hi tech then.
Originally posted by Flinx
Why the hell would we need to expand our nuclear stockpile?
Why would we need to start underground testing again?
We need more because if we get in a nuclear war with another country we need the upper hand? What?!
People don't understand the true horror of these weapons and would rather sit around beating their chests and waving their various flags.