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.

 

Bush wants to restock nuclear arsonal

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   
The Bush admin. revealed a plan Wedensday for restocking our aging, nuclear arsonal that would include the capacity for mass production as well as replacing existing warheads with possibly new bomb designs inluding bunker buster and baby nukes.
 



www.latimes.com
The Bush administration on Wednesday unveiled a blueprint for rebuilding the United States' 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 claims will no longer be reliable or safe.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Ya know it isn't called MAD for nothing. The whole notion of wanting and using nuclear weapons is obscene. These are not, nor have they ever been battlefield weapons. They are designed to destroy populations...there are those who would say infrastructure as well, but those can be taken out without nukes...this is a weapon against people...men, women, children, neighborhoods, homes. It was wrong when it was first used and the whole idea is wrong now. Yes yes I know other nations have them so we must have them too or so the logic goes but its faulty logic...our military budget is larger than some countries gross national product, in fact its larger than at least 5 of our nearest competitors combined. Even without nukes, there is not a nation on earth that can stand up to our military power. To want to redesign nukes so that they could be used in battle, is just plain wrong. All war is immoral, to want to use nukes is evil.

Related News Links:
www.truthout.org

[edit on 4/6/06 by FredT]

[edit on 6-4-2006 by parrhesia]




posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   
grover

if no countries on this planet possessed nukes then i'd be against this country's plans to develop them. unfortunately that's not the case.

our nuclear arsenal needs to be updated as old nukes become degraded plain and simple.

the russians are building a whole new generation of nuke missiles and the chicoms are arming up too.

necessary evil to guarantee MAD.

us using them against japan cannot be construed as 'evil'. first off, they attacked US. secondly, we would have planted a million men and killed millions of japanese in an all out invasion.

war does suck though. i'm on board with you on that one.

[edit on 7-4-2006 by darth ruin]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   
We need to update our arsenal. We also need to put a stop to Iran building bombs and nukes.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by darth ruin
us using them against japan cannot be construed as 'evil'. first off, they attacked US. secondly, we would have planted a million men and killed millions of japanese in an all out invasion.
[edit on 7-4-2006 by darth ruin]


Why is it so important to classify everything as good or evil? Its ridiculous and stupid.

Morality has very little bearing on actual real-life action. We do what we have to do and the U.S. did what it had to do in World War II. It wasn't evil, but it wasn't good either.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Yeah I agree. It was necessary and therefore a neutral act. Its "morality" depends upon the light which you cast upon it.

[edit on 7-4-2006 by squirrelassasin]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by squirrelassasin
Yeah I agree. It was necessary and therefore a neutral act. Its "morality" depends upon the light which you cast upon it.

[edit on 7-4-2006 by squirrelassasin]


I mean seriously, what were we supposed to do? Get more of our troops killed? Okinawa and Iwo Jima were two huge wake-up calls for American forces. It was war and our job was to win and minimize OUR casualties.

However, the "comes with the territory" aspect of this is that we did lose our right to lecture other countries about mass destruction.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 04:36 AM
link   
The W76 needs to be replaced. It's the same size as the W88 with 1/3 the power. Also, it has a very very thin uranium tamper that some scientiests are worried may fail during the primary explosion, so the secondary fusion won't ignite. It's supposed to be 170kt, and it would be 5kt or so without the secondary.

The W88 is a fantastic design. Bush 1 basically killed it by having the FBI raid Rocky Flats. Big mistake. We only made 400 of them. That's only enough for 2 Ohio class subs. The rest still have the old W76's.

The Minutemans have the W87 from the MX/Peacekeeper, or at least many do now. Those are related to the W88 and are good, reliable, and powerful.

However, I'd like to see a new class of 350-500kt come out and replace all the old ICBM/SLBM warheads.

I figure the B83 and B61 bombs are fairly reliable still.

[edit on 10-4-2006 by Monty22001]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 05:33 AM
link   
And did you also bother to read the other 5 threads about this? The ones that say this plan will REDUCE the US weapons stockpile by 4000 weapons? They want to have a stockpile of 1700-2200 weapons, down from the 6000 or so they have now.

This is a very interesting read. Notice how the Triad has changed since the Cold War era. From the ICBM-SLBM-ALCM, to non-nuclear/nuclear-defenses-responsive infrastructure. I found that rather interesting.

www.globalsecurity.org...

[edit on 4/10/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 05:36 AM
link   
I'm not for them reducing, that's for sure. I say keep current levels and modernize.

B83's, B61's, ACM, Minuteman, and SLBM's are critical to security.

You gotta have at least 4x overkill for every situation, and that's more than 2000 warheads.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 05:39 AM
link   
They're removing 4 SSBNs from the fleet, and converting them to SSGNs. They'll modernize the D-5 on the other SSBNs in the process of modernizing the weapons stockpile. They're also in the process of removing the last of the Peacekeepers, if they haven't already.

[edit on 4/10/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Yeah, I know the Peacekeeper W87 warheads are being put on Minuteman 3's.

The D5 stuff is good, but again I want them to all have W88's. 4 less SLBM's is probably ok, but no more I hope.

I honestly think in any nuclear warfare in the future, it'll be with bombers, not missiles, especially against smaller states.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Actually it's 96 fewer SLBMs. Each SSBN carries 24 missiles, and they're removing four Ohio SSBNs for conversion. The USS Ohio has already been converted to an SSGN and has been undergoing sea trials.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   
I did mean SSBN's, not the missiles.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Got confused by the SLBM in your post. I was gonna say, I know an SSBN carries more than one SLBM per hull.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join