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 Produce 125 Nukes a year

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Pretty distrubing news, Still dont see the point in nukes. Sure the more you have the more you scare another nation... all it takes is 1 single nuke and others will be triggered and the world will end. Why would he wank to make 125 a year?



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.

LA Times


[edit on 7-4-2006 by And3h]




posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
How will one nuke going off trigger others and end the world? And "why would he want to make 125 a year?" Because they want to replace the ones the Pentagon retires that are old and becomming unsafe.

They destroy 125 old nukes and replace them will brand new nukes... get it?

Mod Edit to remove quote of previous post.


[edit on 8-4-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   
If russia sees a detects a nuke coming from america they will no doubt send one back, and other countries will also detect and fire if need be.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:20 AM
link   
You do NOT need to make more, all you need to do is update your old ones. If you work at keeping them in good shape you will save more than having to build more in the long run. Also as another has said: It only takes one nuke to cause a nuclear war.
Why? Because in this world if a nuke is detected comming from any nation and is lets say moving WEST then EVERY NATION IN THE WESTERN DIRECTION OF THAT NATION will think they are being attacked and fire back, then everyone EAST OF THEM will think THEY are being attacked because of the massive barrage being fired and fire back themselves rather than risk NOT firing and getting crushed.

Ok nation X wants to nuke nation Y and nation Y is west of them but they have to fire over 5 nations to hit them. Nation X fires 1 nuke and nations A, B, C, D, E and Y detect it and fire back. West of nation X is 3 nations: H, I, F, they think they are being attacked by the incomming barrage and fire back, but they have to fire over nation X, nation X thinks they are being attacked by nations H, I, and F and fire at them. Each of these nations have allies who start firing, so now they are launching missiles every which way thinking someone is firing at them when it was originally just a dispute between nation X and nation Y.
Governments own fears lead to all out wars, all that has to happen is 1 bomb in the wrong or right spot and everyone will think WW3 has started and will try and keep the other from gaining the upper hand. Sounds stupid yes but anyone who proliferates nukes as bad as the USA's govt. is ignorant as all getout. Over 36,000 nukes which is enough to wipe out everyone in the world in a short amount of time and yet they want more, more, more.
Some people wont listen to this so this is my only post to these people.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 01:17 AM
link   
That's not entirely true Vekar. As a nuke ages, no matter how carefully you take care of it, or service it, the core gives off helium(IIRC), in the form of bubbles in the core. As those build up your chance of getting a fizzle increases exponentially. Nukes were NOT meant to sit for 25-30 years. It doesn't matter if you service them daily, or take great care of them. This is a naturally occuring process.


Aging impacts in stockpile weapons has been subtle so far, but to understand the aging effects after 60 years, scientists can't simply multiply the effects they've seen in 20-year-old plutonium by three, the current age of the oldest weapons in the stockpile. This is because plutonium is the most unpredictable of all the metallic elements, and some aging effects may appear suddenly after years of stable behavior.

The team expects to see some changes in the density of the spiked plutonium and in the growth of helium within its molecular structure, similar to aging effects they've observed in stockpile plutonium.

By analyzing the samples at birth and as they age, the researchers hope to prove they have made plutonium that is nearly identical in nature to metal manufactured into weapons at Rocky Flats. By comparing the samples to the oldest material in the stockpile, they hope to determine whether the accelerated aging process accurately mimics the way weapon pits change as they age.

"Most things age from the outside in, but plutonium is much more unique because it also ages from the inside out," says former Laboratory Director Sig Hecker, a plutonium metallurgist and technical adviser to the experiment.

As plutonium atoms decay, they break down into uranium atoms and helium nuclei, both of which are highly energetic. The helium nuclei eventually combine with other helium nuclei to form helium gas bubbles inside the plutonium metal. The newborn uranium atoms continuously knock plutonium atoms out of place; in fact, about one of every 10 plutonium atoms in a pit is knocked out of position by uranium atoms each year. Most return to their original locale, but some are permanently displaced.

www.lanl.gov...

[edit on 4/8/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
This is all fine and dandy... regular maintenance intervals, replace old nukes due to snap, crackle, and pop, send billions to defense contractors...

But to me, the point remains: Why is the US allowed to store and build nuclear weapons but almost any other country who even THINKS about it gets a UN inspection, sanctions and probably a nice shock and awe air strike?

Oh, right, right.. THEY are the bad guys... we are good so we should be allowed to have nukes. Gotcha!

Go team!



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by please_takemyrights
Oh, right, right.. THEY are the bad guys...


Yes, they are. I highly doubt Iran could have held defensive
nukes like we have for decades upon decades without dragging
them out and using them to fulfill the promise of destroying
Israel .. or any other infidel country.

BTW ... I didn't read if these were new battlefield nukes or H bombs
etc. Exactly what level bombs are these and are they really NEW
or are they just replacements for the ones that have kept us
from being invaded all these decades??

ALSO - considering how late it is in his presidency I highly doubt
he'll be able to get much of anything passed in the next few months
before the 2008 election cycle kicks in. He's a lame duck.

[edit on 4/8/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Must...

Have...

More...

Nukes...

To preserve Peace, Freedom and Democracy ofcourse!


Nukes = Insanity



Former U.S. Secretary of Defense, Robert Macnamara, told ABC's Background Briefing that current U.S. nuclear policy is "insane."

“The U.S. has deployed 6,000 strategic nuclear warheads, each one on average with a destructive capability 20 times that of the Hiroshima bomb... 2,000 are on hair-trigger alert, ready to be launched on 15-minute warning by one man without any consultation, the president. That’s insane. And it’s insane secondly, because it stimulates others, the North Koreas, the Irans to try to move toward development of nuclear weapons, which is contrary to their national security interest, and certainly contrary to ours.”

Yes - what a GREAT role model for every Nation and Nationality on this Planet, that does NOT have Nukes.

In my opinion NOBODY should have Nuclear weapons on this Planet.

N O B O D Y !



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
The US was the FIRST to use them on civilians, the US was the first to fire them..... I think the US should be denied use of nukes if you try and count whos the "bad guy" and whos the "good guy". EVERYONE has to start somewhere and Iran might be trying to get theirs started, if no one is allowed to start based on experiance then the US should never have started.
The biggest problem with your nukes is:
The contract as someone mentioned.
So long as the government hires someone else to make bombs, guns, missiles, and nuclear weapons you will have mass weapons races to see who can get the most and leech the most money, and who pays for this? WE DO! We are in short supporting these fools greedys ambitions because the government doesnt stop them. Then again the government CANT stop them because they are OWNED by them.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   

But to me, the point remains: Why is the US allowed to store and build nuclear weapons but almost any other country who even THINKS about it gets a UN inspection, sanctions and probably a nice shock and awe air strike?


Its called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, you might want to look it up some time. Let me just quote from it real quick to help you out.


Article One

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon Sate to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.



Article II

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistant in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.


NPT Text

Now, under Article One five nations are permitted to posses Nuclear Weapons, these five nation are the United States, United Kingdom, France, China, Russia. These nation were at the time the only ones in the world to have Nuclear Weapons when the treaty opened up for signature. For that reason they were allowed to retain them granted they did not give them to other nations which did not posses Nuclear Weapons. It just so happens that these five nations are also the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Now, the Security Council is charged with upholding and enforcing the NPT against violations.

Now Article II states that all signatories agree to not peruse the development or acquisition of Nuclear Weapons. So for example Iran which is an Article II signatory attempts to acquire Nuclear Weapons it would be in violation of the NPT and subject to sanctions and other forms of punishment from the Security Council or perhaps others.


The US was the FIRST to use them on civilians, the US was the first to fire them..... I think the US should be denied use of nukes if you try and count whos the "bad guy" and whos the "good guy".


As such, you have put the action in historical context. Being the first the US was unaware of the implication of using an Atomic Weapon. At the time it was just seen as another bomb in the inventory that just has a really powerful explosion. For example, fire bombs used by the US killed way more people than the Atomic Bombs dropped, so why is this overlooked? Because of the hysteria and shock that surrounds Nuclear Weapons, at that time there was no such hysteria and shock. One could argue that the Atomic Bombs used by the US saved more lives than they destroyed because they ended the war and spared both Japan and the US a full out invasion which would have killed million. I know you want to ignore this fact but I felt like pointing it out that it might have been the lesser of two evils.

Now, the US has greatly reduced the amount of Nuclear Weapons in its arsenal since the end of the Cold War. However while the need for a vast amount may have been reduced the need for Nuclear Weapons still exists because other nations still possess them (some in very large numbers). Now in order to ensure MAD the US has to maintain the integrity and capability of its Nuclear Forces, keeping 30+ old warheads and not producing new ones to replace them does not accomplish that goal. As others have pointed out no matter how well you maintain Nuclear Weapons you cannot stop time and the natural process of deterioration. There inevitably comes a time when they have to be replaced and that time is now. So, drop the fear mongering, stop the spin, and acknowledge that everything has a shelf life.


[edit on 8-4-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Must...

Have...

More...

Nukes...

To preserve Peace, Freedom and Democracy ofcourse!


If you and everyone saying we're building MORE nukes had bothered reading all of this thread, you'd know that this plan is actually DECREASING our nuclear arsenal by 4000 weapons, and is ONLY to replace our old nukes that are aging and gettng to the point they ay be unreliable. They're dropping the arsenal from 6000+ to as low as 1700. Yes it's still enough to wipe out the planet many times over, BUT IT'S A BIG STEP AT REMOVING THEM.

[edit on 4/8/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I wouldnt bother posting against this or trying to prove thier worth, peoepl will still not understand.....evil prevails....there is only one way to stop a greater evil....and thats to use a lesser one or threaten to use it.

Like when getting mugged, the only way to stop it from happeneing is to threaten the theif from happeneing or not getting into the sitaution.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   

...2,000 are on hair-trigger alert, ready to be launched on 15-minute warning by one man without any consultation, the president. That’s insane.


The above excerpt is from Soulja’s source, I would just like to point out that it is incorrect in claiming that the President can launch Nuclear Weapons without any consultation. The authorization for use of Nuclear Weapons in the US can only be given by the NCA. The NCA consist of the President and the Secretary of Defense, both men have to concur on the order, neither one by himself can issue it. Its what is known as the “two man rule”, and I believe barring any unimaginable or extraordinary events there are no exceptions. I doubt this will make Souljah feel safer but I just wanted to point out the error.

Single Integrated Operational Plan

[edit on 8-4-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
That was actually said by Macnamera during the Vetnam War era, when missiles WERE on a 15 minute alert.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

...2,000 are on hair-trigger alert, ready to be launched on 15-minute warning by one man without any consultation, the president. That’s insane.


The above excerpt is from Soulja’s source, I would just like to point out that it is incorrect in claiming that the President can launch Nuclear Weapons without any consultation. The authorization for use of Nuclear Weapons in the US can only be given by the NCA. The NCA consist of the President and the Secretary of Defense, both men have to concur on the order, neither one by himself can issue it. Its what is known as the “two man rule”, and I believe barring any unimaginable or extraordinary events there are no exceptions. I doubt this will make Souljah feel safer but I just wanted to point out the error.

Single Integrated Operational Plan

[edit on 8-4-2006 by WestPoint23]


Um, not entirely true there Westpoint. During the Eisenhower and Johnson administrations (at least those two) local military commanders had the option of launching limited nuclear strikes on incoming bombers and naval forces, WITHOUT orders. It was entirely at the discretion of the commander on scene, and required no input whatsoever from higher up the chain of command.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:50 AM
link   

During the Eisenhower and Johnson administrations (at least those two) local military commanders had the option of launching limited nuclear strikes on incoming bombers and naval forces, WITHOUT orders. It was entirely at the discretion of the commander on scene, and required no input whatsoever from higher up the chain of command.


Yes I know, I was only referring to the process now, during the Cold War commanders did have more autonomy.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
In a world with nukes, there is no use in not having any. However...

There is no reason for the U.S. to have as much as it does now. Fortunately, its just a small chunk of the quantity of nukes America had at the height of the Cold War. Even so, there is no reason for the U.S. to have THAT many.

I say the U.S. disposes of their entire nuclear arsenal and instead build two Tsar Bombas .



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Dis armament all around.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join