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.

 

US Building State of the Art Nukes!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Hi everyone..This is my first thead so excuse me if this isn't in the right place...i just heard on fox new that here in the bay area they are building new and safer nukes..safer meaning they would be harder to deconstruct...so my questions is, how is this going to effect (anything?) you tell me...They say they will have to test these new nukes too.. sorry i cant find a link but it was on San Fransisco fox news at 10:00pm...anyone else see it?




posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   
We have to. Our nuclear arsenal is aging and new ones need to be built and tested to maintain the same efficiency we have now with our nuclear arsenal.

The Russian build new ICBMs all the time.


It is only a matter of time before the US resumes nuclear testing.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   
What would you rather... 10,000 nukes that are old and unstable which may cause defunctioning or health risks - or 10,000 safer, newer, more stable nukes.

Unfortunatley, 0 nukes is no longer an option



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi
What would you rather... 10,000 nukes that are old and unstable which may cause defunctioning or health risks - or 10,000 safer, newer, more stable nukes.

Unfortunatley, 0 nukes is no longer an option


Exactly.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Our Great President Tony Blair has said that Britain's nuclear deterrent needs to be updated and/or upgraded because they are almost at the end of their life.

I have a couple of questions:

1. Do nuclear weapons have shelf lives?

2. Do they have a 'use by' date?

3. If you have old stock and you use them, do they not go BANG and kill thousands of people and irradiate the land for 50 to 100 years or so?

You don't need tens of thousands of nuclear weapons to have a deterrent. You need smaller warheads on low cost long range cruise missiles.

The vast amounts of money spent by so-called civilized nations on improving weapons of mass destruction is both immoral and obscene, especially when so many of our own people are well below the poverty line!



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
1. Do nuclear weapons have shelf lives?


Due to the 1960's test ban that the United States and Russia signed, this is a diffucult question to answer. No longer can any of the 40 year old nukes be pulled out for a test to see if they work.

Regardless of that, they do have a shelf life. They must be maintained and certain parts of the delivery system/weapon have to be replaced every now and again.


Originally posted by fritz
2. Do they have a 'use by' date?


Similar answer to question one. It would be more of a "Best Before" though



Originally posted by fritz
3. If you have old stock and you use them, do they not go BANG and kill thousands of people and irradiate the land for 50 to 100 years or so?


Quite possibly not. Nuclear weapons need a conventional explosion to set them off. If the conventional explosives have expired then the reaction will not go. Hydrogen bombs need an Atom bomb to detonate them. This basically means if your conventional explosives don't work in the atom bomb, the bigger bomb isn't going off either.

Rocket fuel in the delivery systems is also an issue when it comes to age.

If the unthinkable actually occured and there was a nuclear exchange, you would want the bombs to go off.


Originally posted by fritz
You don't need tens of thousands of nuclear weapons to have a deterrent. You need smaller warheads on low cost long range cruise missiles.


True, you don't need 10's of thousands as a detterant. But if your enemy doesn't buy into your deterrent and launches, you need to effectivley be able to strike to avoid further launches and too gain the upper hand in a god awful situation.


Originally posted by fritz
The vast amounts of money spent by so-called civilized nations on improving weapons of mass destruction is both immoral and obscene, especially when so many of our own people are well below the poverty line!


Most of the improving done these days is to make them safer whilst on the shelf. This is a good thing really. Better safe than sorry.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   
They are working on them in the Eastbay at Lawrence Livermore Labs. I heard they are working on dial-a-nuke warheads at LLL in which a nuclear bomb that has already been dropped from an aircraft can be programmed to blow up anything from a city block to a couple square miles, all with 1 bomb.

Too bad they aren't working on improving nuclear power like they are working on nuclear warheads.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
They are working on them in the Eastbay at Lawrence Livermore Labs. I heard they are working on dial-a-nuke warheads at LLL in which a nuclear bomb that has already been dropped from an aircraft can be programmed to blow up anything from a city block to a couple square miles, all with 1 bomb.

Too bad they aren't working on improving nuclear power like they are working on nuclear warheads.


Actually they have made quite afew advances in the nuclear power field. en.wikipedia.org...

The idea of a 0-nuke world is probably a definate impossability going on the current political climates. But the idea of M.A.D. (Mutually. Assured. Destruction.) being a deterrant is no longer an option either... The idea of building nukes that are nothing more then city-busters is not really a deterrant for a smaller country that has nothing to lose or for a group that has no country. The Dial-a-yield is under developement in conventional and the idea of them in a nuke will be rather impressive in a morbid sort of way to see if it can be pulled off.



[edit on 6-11-2006 by Annachie]



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Thanks for all the Replies everyone! i understand everything everyone said...will any other nation get mad at us for it?



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Why would another nation get upset with us, we are spending our own money on this technology while at the same time we are threatening no one with it.

The main reason we are updating our nukes, is that they are outdated and getting too dangerous for us to keep as is. No one can get mad with us for that reason.

At no time has the US as a nation said something to the effect that ____ nation has no right to exist and should be wiped off the map. If we started saying things like what Iran and others say then yes I can see others getting upset about this technology, as it is now, we are wasting our resources on something hopefully we will never use.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Also, keep in mind that we have many uses for nuclear reactions other than to blow stuff up. the EMP pulse bieng one of them. We found out a long time ago that the EMP pulse streangth wasn't determined so much by the size of the nuclear warhead (although it helps) but the way it is buiolt and rigged to blow. We developed alot of our smaller nukes just for the EMP pulse which is in many ways more usefull. We could be extracting the older warheads and converting them into use for more 'practacle' nukes. Also we have more stable methods for detonating fusion bombs than through some other nuclear reaction. Lasers and the such. We could just be upgrading them to the newer echelons of nuclear tech.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Think about it. A US SSN enters the area of an enemy naval fleet. It quietly floats out a ASROC that has one of these newer nuclear warheads. The sub leaves the area. The ASROC at a pre determined time or via remote activates and travels to the target undersea. Once it's breached the outer picket force of the enemy naval fleet it can then dive few hundred feet and detonate.

The nuclear explosion would be small. the radiation would be limited or not at all near the surface. The ASROC wouldn't have to hit any of the targets. The explosion would largely be contained and the evidence would wash away, but the EMP wave would travel outward in a sphere. The water would not impead it, and the entire surface armada is shorted out by the pulse and left as useless helpless metal boxes floating in the ocean with their crew stuck inside.

The only thing to defend themselves with would be whatever small arms they have in the shipboard armorys. No loss of life, except for those with pacemakers. No destruction of valuble ships which could be surquestered and turned against the enemy. No communications to the outside world for help. No body in the world would know what happened to them, until their satallites or aircraft go looking for them, and in a war I'm sure the US could easily keep any unwanted aircraft from getting close enough to investigate until it was too late and the spoils would be relativly safely in our hands.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   
you know...like i said...i appreciate everyones comments but people sound like i should know this #...thats why i ask...dont give me no additude



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Why even bother with WMDs if we want to cause even more damage, let them sit, and screw up more, that way when you launch it, you will completly screw up everything, and kill MILLIONS!!!! WONT THAT BE FUN KIDS!!
seriosly why do we stockpile weapons in hopes of smothering an enemy that we are not sure really exists? We began stock-piling nukes during the cold war. Why not we just let them lay in their silos longer. I dont believe that there will be any immediate use for them. Instead of Mutually Assured Destruction, Mutually assured love. there is no need for all of this violence.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annachie

Originally posted by Low Orbit
They are working on them in the Eastbay at Lawrence Livermore Labs. I heard they are working on dial-a-nuke warheads at LLL in which a nuclear bomb that has already been dropped from an aircraft can be programmed to blow up anything from a city block to a couple square miles, all with 1 bomb.

Too bad they aren't working on improving nuclear power like they are working on nuclear warheads.


Actually they have made quite afew advances in the nuclear power field. en.wikipedia.org...

The idea of a 0-nuke world is probably a definate impossability going on the current political climates. But the idea of M.A.D. (Mutually. Assured. Destruction.) being a deterrant is no longer an option either... The idea of building nukes that are nothing more then city-busters is not really a deterrant for a smaller country that has nothing to lose or for a group that has no country. The Dial-a-yield is under developement in conventional and the idea of them in a nuke will be rather impressive in a morbid sort of way to see if it can be pulled off.



[edit on 6-11-2006 by Annachie]


Dial a Yield is not a new feature..it is very olde. Been around for along time and perfected.

Try Howard Moreland "The Secret that Exploded" available on the web. Amazon Barnes and Noble ..etc etc.

How Hydrogen Bombs work and the vendors who manufacture many of the parts for them.

Howard will explain the rudiments of how the dial a yield feature works...and others.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Something just occured to me. Other than for the practicle reasons we might be publicly talking about upgrading these nukes for political reasons. North Korea for instance.

When the korean war was going on the leaders who would later create north korea remarked on how absolute US airpower was. They felt it was our prime military advantage. To take that advantage away from the US or any other country that would wage a massive air campaign against them they attempted and largely succeded in building enough underground bunker, bases and such to house and protect most of their military. SInce NK is pretty mountainus and granite like they could easily build these bases so that they would withstand most of our bunker buster bombs.

We developed nuclear bunker busters to show NK and other countries who adopted this stratagy that we had developed systems to take even those facilities out.

I think that when presidents of the US are publicly mouthing off about re-instateing nuclear weapons programs. I think they are largly talking about this field of nukes. It reminds the countries like NK that we still have a trump card and can still get them. Maybe they think it will demonstrate the futility of their current direction and intimidate them down.

Also Nuclear weapons could mean anything using a nuclear process. Satallites and SDI stuff would fit under that umbrella term too. Although my last statement is not really what this thread is about.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
I had never heard of Dial-a-yield until 2005 with conventional weaponry Orangetom. My main studying specialty is ancient weapons. Not the newest biggest, baddest, blow-ups on the block.


I think upgrading our nuclear arms is a good idea. the idea of upgraded security features, easier maintenance with less potential of hazardous exposure for the techs working on them, Lowjacking the nukes is a good idea too if it is not done already.

I do not see the United States creating a Tzar Bomba like the Russians did that is in the 50-megaton range. I think our largest test was 15-megaton in an airburst in the late 50's or early 60's. So the idea of making a bigger boom is kinda a weak arguement when it is instead much easier to find new ways technically to make the boom and make it safer when stored.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
One. While a great deal of North-Korean military infrastructure has been bunkered in one form or another through the use of its all-ready problematic terrain, our current solution to this is pre-existing Bunker-Buster's, with FAE as a backup to open-circulation installations.

We've yet to ever build a nuclear weapon capable of 'bunker busting'. It has been brought up, presented, and turned-down.

Presidents since the nineties have never 'mouthed off' about any nuclear program. Such a thing is too volatile, and would damage their political capital heavily depending on current situation, and what media it was passed through.

No, the United States Military uses entirely different classifications for satellites, lasers, or whatever else you'd enjoy throwing out. Nuclear weapons are those utilizing a fission, or fusion process to complete its mission; tactical, or strategic.

Larger bombs are by-and-large useless, and become redundant after a certain range. The Tsar Bomba was more of a nationalist-style propaganda device, as the Russians have a history of developing extremely large, though tactically un-sound weaponry of the sort.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I agree that Nuclear weapons are devices that use nuclear processes. when they say they are developing nuclear weapons the nuclear part doesn't always have to be the part that explodes, sometimes nothing is ment to explode at all. THink about it.

i used too strong of a word when I said 'mouth off' I was referring to any time george bush brings up talks about wanting to develop nuclear bunker busting weapons. We've already developed them to counter the strategies of our adversaries. We can't admit to that in any other form than tacitly or read between the lins, because we signed treaties saying that we wouln't develop more nuclear weapon system, but we did anyways. We always are, we just don't talk about it openly. When president do its to get NK and other countries attention to the fact that we do indeed have such tools at our disposal to bring down their house, even when it's made of bricks and buried way under ground.

Incedently we also developed those thermobrombic weapons as a friendler way to take out those bunkers, we jsut happened to field test them in afghanistan instead.

And I agree with you large bombs are not so usefull.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Actually my reference for the Tsar Bomba was more to show that weapons up to that size have been created so the idea that we are making "new" nukes simply for larger size is an empty arguement.

There is always a place in a military for area-affect weapons like a large scale nuke so I would not be surprised if we still developed them. A country would be less likely to mass troops together in one location if they know that some cowboy strapped to a nuke is about to rain down on them and take them out.. *Abit of dramatacism* Course I do not know what will scare them more.. The nuke or the cowboy...

A smaller tactical device has alot more uses both including less fallout and ability to be more precise in there target. A Cruise missile flying down into a cave to touch off in my eyes is much more impressive then wasting a heavier device to remove the mountain that the cave is in... *Again.. Overdramatized*

In the proper tactical sence an EMP is nice in idea but in practice there are alot of environ factors to take into consideration for it to be viable as a weapon. Simply for that "More study needed" from what I can read on wikipedia and other websites.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join