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: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
There is absolutely no need for thousands of new nuclear weapons....these things are expensive to maintain and as such Iran or pakistan or north korea will never be able to maintain more than a few dozen maximum and thats probably being generous. The other so called nuclear powers have already cut back their stockpiles, and for the most part the Russian stockpile is in decay. 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.
To redesign them so they could actually be used on a battlefield is just surreal and obscene. It is bad enough to contemplate using them, to actually do so is evil.

No ideology, no territory, no God is worth that.




posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I said this before, and in another thread.


We're not building new weapons to add to the stockpile. We're buildng new weapons to REPLACE the stockpile. Nuclear weapons aren't made to sit on the shelf for 25-30 years or more. As they age, they develop problems with the core, so that if we need them, they may not work. The last thing to do is to remove them. We CAN'T be the only kid on the block without them when so many others either have them or are working towards them. They are going to replace the 6,000 or so that we have now, and have about 2200 total in the inventory.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   

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 they arent, a few hundred is what nations like Pakistan have. Would you want to be out gunned if say we are at war with China ? The USA out gunned !

There are never too many nuclear weapons. There are old nuclear weapons that need replacing but never too many. Restructuring the nuclear arsenal to deal with present threats is of vital importance as not only will it be possible to involve nuclear strike capability into a military offensive it would also provide for its safer use than ever before. Previously a nuke strike was a population leveler, say a miniteman with 6 Mirv's but today through advances it can be used as a strategic weapon to destroy underground complexes, to level facilites etc. Say we were to blow up an Iranian reactor tommorow that is an hardened underground facility, with advances in our nuclear strike capability it would be possible to use nuclear yeilds to acheive something that previously conventionaly it was impossible. 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 .



No ideology, no territory, no God is worth that.

Freedom is.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
There are never too many nuclear weapons. There are old nuclear weapons that need replacing but never too many.


this way of thinking can only send chills down my spine. 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. 200 nuclear weapons with world wide capabilities is more then enough with the radars we have. you must be crazy to think mutually assured destruction doesnt apply.

never mind you must be kidding....i cant picture any other possibilities you could be talking like this. talking about USING the nuclear weapons....well i guess we can stop taking you serious now. your either kidding or truely want the world to end in destruction.

Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   


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 .


In this one sentence, you have shown you know naff all about nuclear weapons.

An H-bomb or neutron bomb being directed or cleaner? An H-bomb is triggered by a standard fission weapon and it's yield is in the megaton range. The only use would be to level a city and would leave radiation everywhere, not a targetted, clean strike on a facility.

The neutron bomb is essentially a tweaked fission device and still detonates like a normal weapon, but has a higher radiation yield. This is designed for use against large troop concentrations. Again, not very clean.


PS: It's spelt defence in English. Being from England and speaking English, we English spell it correctly. In the bastardized American English, it may well be defense, but remember that night is spelt nite and they cannot pronounce Aluminium.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   

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.


I was talking in reference to that number of nuclear weapons mentioned. 200 is a pretty low number especially if potential threats continue to posses greater and greater numbers of nuclear devices. Also every nuclear device would not necessarily level cities or decimate populations, that is what advances in technology would enable us to do.
If 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. We could cause a lot of damage but not necessarily decimate the opposition as we can now. Plus the numbers are security initself, like cash in the bank, you might not always need it but its good to have.

I dont say lets start mass production, but rather re-engineer them to meet the strategic objectives of the future. We should hope to be so strong that none of our enemies would want to go to war against us. This we are, to some extent now but by reducing our nuclear capabilities to the numbers stated, it would just enbolden our threats . Moreover its not like we are adding to our current detterence levels is it, it is more an overhaul.
And yeah, i was a bit over the top with that last post but that was in another context.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   


No ideology, no territory, no God is worth that.
Freedom is.



You have voted IAF101 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 8-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:14 AM
link   
haha I love the shock..why is this a shock?

these people aren't there for you..they are there to serve an agenda



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   

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.


We'd all be dead by then and there would be no one left to care whether the US is *removed* or not.


Building and stockpiling such massive amounts of nuclear ordinates only isolates the US.

We do not live in the Cold War era anymore, yet our federal government and private companies since then have acted as if we do. Out muscling other nations will no longer get the job done, that means maintaining the US's economic power and prowess. And private companies suck at promoting engineers. The MBA's of this country and politicians are leading the US to a road of disaster. Though I do not think this immediate effect of incompetent actions will happen anytime soon. Though, look at NASA, from what I hear the MBA to engineer ratio favors the MBA's.

I think this decision to upgrade the US's nuclear stockpile will only amplify the US's downfall, which is its ablity to change and adapt. Because in my humble opinion, the US has only been the world's clear and dominant economic superpower since the 1950's after the end of, how bout this, WWII. But fifty years has come and gone, it is time to move on, to travel the path less taken and to be innovative, dexterious and educated for what awaits us: the brave new world.

[edit on 8-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
In this one sentence, you have shown you know naff all about nuclear weapons.

No, it means that I'm well read and you are talking about technology decades old.
Ever heard of Metallic hydrogen, Z-pinch, laser initiated/inertial confinement trigger, nuclear isomer triggers, nano-fission devices ?

Here's an ATS thread of what I'm talking about :


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


Also weapons produced with today's know how are also definitely better than those produced back in the 50's, there is no doubt about that. They are cleaner and can be better directed than ever before. Further development will only push the envelope. Many of these are already in the piple line like bunker blasting nukes, directed nuclear devices, EMP weapons etc moving into the kiloton range.
Here something from an interesting source:
xmb.stuffucanuse.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101

Originally posted by grover

No ideology, no territory, no God is worth that.


Freedom is.


How flag wavingly patriotic of you.

Answer me this what good is freedom when everything and one is destroyed and what is left is a nuclear wasteland, incaplable of supporting life?

mod edit to fix quote tags

[edit on 8-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Where was this outcry when Russia recently developed a new varient of one of its ICBMs?



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   

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.


This plan will actually DECREASE the arsenal by almost 4000 weapons. The current arsenal is about 6000 weapons, after this plan is done they will have between 1700 and 2200 weapons.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
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? We need more because if we get in a nuclear war with another country we need the upper hand? What?!

Do you not get that more nuclear weapons will just make things worse? Having more nukes won't stop the entire world from being annihlated. All of your nationalism, your countries, all your petty bickering, all your precious "FREEDOM" will disappear in an instant. But I guess the thought that "we nuked him better more that he nuked us" will make it all better when the flesh is melting off your bones or you're dying of radiation poisoning.

People don't understand the true horror of these weapons and would rather sit around beating their chests and waving their various flags. And it's not just people on the internets...we have people in charge actually contemplating using a nuke as a tactical weapon... *sigh* I swear trying to understand how some of you think is like trying to understand how an alien thinks...

[edit on 4/10/2006 by Flinx]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   

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?


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.



Why would we need to start underground testing again?


Because, my friend, nuclear wepons are an extremely complex and delicate systems that are very difficult to design and model. You need to make sure all of your complex math works out fine. And that is done with what we, physisists, call an experiment. Or testing.

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?



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   

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.


If you read the first sentence of my post, I address the maintainence of the nuclear arsenal. I don't have a problem with that. I did however read a comment in this thread and several in others saying that we should EXPAND the nuclear arsenal. I find that idea ludicrous.



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?


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.

Also nuclear testing isn't competely "innocent" and devoid of deep political implications. It sends a message, no matter what the intentions are. Most nations of the world have stopped nuclear testing for a reason, and for us to start this testing again would send a very bad message. Well...more than we're already sending...



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   

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.


Flinx, this indeed can be very difficult for someone like you who don't have a lot of knowledge about the inner workings of a nuke. For someone like me, who has a little bit of knowledge about that, this is much easier to comprehend.

You are also missing the point that it's equally important that the bombs DON'T explode unless triggered. One has to make damn sure theu don't.



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.


As I said, your lack of specific knowledge prevents you from making substantive statements on this technical topic. What do you know about maintenance of aging nuclear devices? The long term behavior of the materials used in the design? You probably have read here that the hydrogen istopes used in thermonuclear warheads have finite lifetime. 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.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   
First of all Aelita, there's no need to be so condescending. And no, while I know the process of fission and generally how a nuclear weapon works, I don't know the technical specs of nuclear weapons, nor do I know what is involved in the maintenance of these devices. I'm not an expert on the devices like you claim to be.

What I am quite knowlegable about however is geopolitics and international relations. I understand the implications of restarting nuclear testing will be and I understand the dangers of expanding the nuclear arsenal and creating new weapons. You arrogantly touting your technical knowledge and attempting to "shout down" another poster as if they have no right to comment on the situation does nothing to address these issues.

If you're attempting to frame the debate as a "technical topic" in order to shut out those with opposing views and establish yourself as the "expert" of the thread who cannot be challeged, I'm sorry but that won't fly. I am coming at this subject from another point of view and as far as I know no one has locked the discussion into technical points only. Look at the inital post...it was about the restoration of bomb making production.



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.


Don't be ridiculous....I'm not 5. Really?? Electronics can age and explosives can deteriorate?? GEE I didn't know that.... What the heck kind of specialized knowledge is that? And once again, as I've said from the beginning I agree with maintaining the nuclear arsenal. I don't understand why we have to begin testing again...but that wasn't my main point. There was absolutely nothing nonchalant about my post.

[edit on 4/10/2006 by Flinx]



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx
Why the hell would we need to expand our nuclear stockpile?

The government isnt contemplating expanding our nuclear deterrent but rather redefining it to face up to the challenges of the new century. In fact the restructuring process would bring down the US nuclear detterence by a significant amount, replacing the conventional Titan's and the Peackeepers with smarter, cleaner, more effecient and safer nuclear weapons than the previous century. These are new weapons for the new century and America has to be prepared for a new century.


Why would we need to start underground testing again?

Well, computational simulations thought they give you reasonable amounts of information these have been based on experimental data obtained decades ago for a category of weapons that are redundant today. Today, we have better sensors, better computational aids and newer technologies that would help make these weapons, cleaner, smarter and safer than ever before. But these technologies have not been tested to actually work in total with a device. Data that is available is that which has been gather decades ago, using inferior sensors, and limited readings and outdated technology when compared with todays technology. This makes assessing today tech by using yesterday's values difficult and imprecise. Thus the need for actual testing.
This is not some political exercise or a statment we are trying to send to the world. We have nothing to prove to anybody. This is mearly a scientific necessity that needs to be addressed so that we can actually make nuclear devices that take out 'what we want, how we want', rather than leveling cities. By using technology to minimize/eliminate the problems of nuclear weapons like radiation etc and their influence on the civilian populace.



We need more because if we get in a nuclear war with another country we need the upper hand? What?!

We need 'enough' when we are at nuclear war to be able to fight back effectively and suitably by either pre-emptive strikes or retaliations to counter/minimize the damage we could potentially face from enemy nuclear devices. Nuclear devices alone dont give this advantage but go along with lauch systems, delivery vehicles etc but they do provide significant resource to gain a decisive result.


People don't understand the true horror of these weapons and would rather sit around beating their chests and waving their various flags.

The horrors of a device have been to some extent over exaggerated and played up by much of the "Anti-Nuclear" communties. All weapons are not the same and not all devices would instantly kill all life in its vicinity. In fact today such weapons serve no point as, doing a hiroshima is utterly pointless when it comes to defeating a nations military which is mostly dispersed on the peripheries. What the need of the day is smaller, smart devices which can be better directed to destroy say a small military comples, a nuclear facility, a hardened structure or missile silos etc. Things which would be normally difficult and tedious to do with conventional explosives and munitons would be repleced with nuclear devices. THAT is the future the military is looking at, to be able to introduce sub-critical devices in the kilo-ton range.
War is not the product of strength, but the product of conflicting ideals and meekness does not gaurantee survival.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join