RNEP "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator"

Check out the Real Story regarding the Nuclear Bunker Buster. Typical of the Military isn't it? Lots of Bang for our buck and it Kills lots of people.

Problem is, it kills the Wrong People.


www.ucsusa.org...

Originally posted by StarLord
Check out the Real Story regarding the Nuclear Bunker Buster. Typical of the Military isn't it? Lots of Bang for our buck and it Kills lots of people.

Problem is, it kills the Wrong People.


www.ucsusa.org...

Mmmm...a ATS combo #1 special: Opinion served up with embeshment with a side of bias! YUM!

would you like fries with that?

Skippytjc,

Do you feel that the folks that presented this are very far off in their assesment of the information?

If so, let me know in what way please.

Why worry about something that was cancelled -

"After Congress took steps to zero out the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) budget for the second year in a row, it appears the administration has gotten our message. There is no funding requested in the FY07 budget for the nuclear "bunker buster." This is a genuine victory: we have truly killed this unnecessary and misconceived nuclear weapons system, at least for the time being. "

www.ucsusa.org...

Want to tell us about something current?

Originally posted by StarLord
Check out the Real Story regarding the Nuclear Bunker Buster. Typical of the Military isn't it? Lots of Bang for our buck and it Kills lots of people.

Problem is, it kills the Wrong People.

Opinion:

"...Check out the Real Story..."

Bias:

Union of Concerned Scientists, Please, find one "pro" USA government story on this site...

Embelishment:

"...Typical of the Military isn't it?..." and the predictable "...Problem is, it kills the Wrong People.."

Look, I use the most bias sources out there, we use the sources that support our points of view, we all do, but if you are going to use a source as bias as the one you chose, please dont represent it as fact like you did. And if you still choose too us it, at least add more than two dribbles of personal opinion. Make an arguement for pete's sake!



[edit on 2-5-2006 by skippytjc]

Wembley,

You perhaps forgot to include the following from the same link:

"""Nuclear Weapons
After Congress took steps to zero out the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) budget for the second year in a row, it appears the administration has gotten our message. There is no funding requested in the FY07 budget for the nuclear "bunker buster." This is a genuine victory: we have truly killed this unnecessary and misconceived nuclear weapons system, at least for the time being. UCS will continue to monitor the budget process in order to assure that RNEP receives no funding."""

That seems to be double speak imho. It's aint dead 'till the fat cat squeals. Why would they "keep monitoring it if it was truly a dead issue?


"""However, the administration has requested $27.7 million for a Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, up slightly from $24.8 million last year. This increasingly significant program will explore new, theoretically simpler designs for existing nuclear weapons and will require careful scrutiny. We are concerned that the RRW program could increase the chances of a return to nuclear testing and require an enormous, expensive commitment to a renewed capacity to build these redesigned weapons. UCS will work with members of Congress and scientists with knowledge about nuclear weapons to keep this program under tight controls."""

Point is, US shouldn't be using ANY kind of Nuclear warheads "Reliable" or not.
Question for you is, Where do you hide the FALLOUT?



"""Congress imagined the Reliable Replacement Warhead program as an effort to “improve the reliability, longevity, and certifiability of existing weapons and their components.”

The devil, however, is in the details. Whether the RRW is a nonproliferation friendly alternative to the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP)—or a Trojan Horse bearing a return to nuclear testing depends—will depend on the actual research progam carried out by the labs.

Stephen Schwartz has more on the Congressional debate in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists."""

www.armscontrolwonk.com...

Curious here.

Do any of you know where alot of these designs are made...the numbers/ data crunch and the designs of the new generations modified or improved?? Where in this country is all this designing done??

Orangetom

Originally posted by StarLord
Point is, US shouldn't be using ANY kind of Nuclear warheads "Reliable" or not.
Question for you is, Where do you hide the FALLOUT?

Wait a second. Having unreliable warheads is dangerous, wasteful and inefficient in case the US eventually has to use them (which we hope will never happen!).

If you are advocating a unilateral disarmament by the US, you have a right to do so, of course. However, most people think the US should have nukes and it's only logical that it needs good nukes. I think that much is pretty clear.

The fallout is nasty, but if the testing will ever resume, it'll be underground, and if the nukes are used (which we hope they won't) the consequneces of the fallout will be analyzed before the nukes are used. I'm pretty sure that in fact detailed analyses already exist for various theaters, and various scenarios as well.

Aelita,

Isn't having Nukes in the first place, regardless of MAD circumstances the whole problem?

When is a Nuke safe? To put those two words together in one sentence boggles the mind imho.

No Fallout is Good Fallout? Only way I know to pull that off is to never use the Nuke in the first place.

Originally posted by StarLord
Isn't having Nukes in the first place, regardless of MAD circumstances the whole problem?

Again, you don't state your opinion on whether the US should unilaterally dismantle her nukes.

When is a Nuke safe? To put those two words together in one sentence boggles the mind imho.

Look, an airplane is not 100% safe as we all know. Crashes happen all the time, but at a far smaller rate that would have existed if the planes were not properly desinged, maintained, tested and replaced after serving for a long period of time. This applies to nukes, too.

No Fallout is Good Fallout? Only way I know to pull that off is to never use the Nuke in the first place.

It's OK to be idealistic and I certainly don't want nukes to be used ever, however the reality is that we do have nukes and those need proper maintenance and possibly testing.

Aleita,

No Nukes are Good Nukes. NO NUKES. That should be pretty easy to understand.

Wondering to myself after reading some of these posts.

Do any of you know how many people have been killed or displaced in conflicts non nucler since the end of WW2. Are there any statistics on this since the United Nations for World Peace.

I think the number is like 125 to 150 million dead. Im not sure how many displaced..but it must be as high if not higher.

Remember these are non nuclear figures. Think on this a bit. I'm not in favor of using nukes either. I merely point out the provincialness of the thinking going on here

THe fiasco of what happened in the former Yugoslavia should be a wake up call to many of you ..about World Peace. Especially non nuclear peace. Some of you need to think further outside the box you have placed yourselves inside with peace earned for you by the sacrafices and blood of others.

Remember what was or is happening in Africa...in Liberia..even today in the Sudan. And these are times of Peace. Think about it.

Thanks,
Orangetom

OrangeTom,

Thinking out side the box would lead one to deciding that if every country decided to destroy what Nukes they had, it just might lead to those smaller countries to decide to abstain from the Nuclear Weapon Race themselves.

Zoooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Thanks,
Orangetom