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.

 

New Nukes. "Don't Worry. Be Happy"! America Tells China and Russia!!

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 11:41 PM
link   
The Bush Administration announced last Friday the winner of a competition to design the nation's first new generation nuclear weapon. And it has told Russia and China not to worry!!

Relax guys! You see, even if we deploy the new gen nukes, we'll be able to kill only a couple of billion people more. What's a couple of billion between friends?

Iran? North Korea? Oh man! They're rogue nations you see? You can't even trust them with a pop gun! They'll destroy the world many times over. It's only Americans who are the responsible inhabitants of this world and therefore have the license to develop, stockpile and deploy the latest hi tech WMDs!

So much for American double standards! The 'king' can do no wrong. Bush on, regardless....I mean, bash on regardless!!

Cheers!

More..




posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Ungh, just what the world needed, even more advancements in nuclear weaponry... what, as if the nukes the Americans have aren't already deadly enough? They're NUKES for # sake.

This makes me want to start a research group into the process of neutralizing radioactive materials before they can be triggered.
It would be fun taking trips around the world, aiming the device at nuclear stockpiles and rendering the worlds most deadliest weapon inoperable.

[edit on 4-3-2007 by johnsky]

Mod Edit: removed censor circumvention
Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 4-3-2007 by sanctum]



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 12:22 AM
link   
[Removed personal insults], Russia has already been developing new Nuclear warheads, and designing a new warhead has NOTHING to do with designing actual yield.

Why would a modern Nuclear weapon be any greater yield than a 1960s yield weapon?

Nuclear war is an "Artillery duel" and has nothing to do with killing civilians, therefore the best yield is about 350-750 kilo tons.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 4-3-2007 by sanctum]



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreiMaurer
...designing a new warhead has NOTHING to do with designing actual yield.

Why would a modern Nuclear weapon be any greater yield than a 1960s yield weapon?

Nuclear war is an "Artillery duel" and has nothing to do with killing civilians, therefore the
best yield is about 350-750 kilo tons.


'Morons', you say?

Frie, gimme a break. Have you heard of 'Counter Force' and 'Counter Value' doctrines? Do you know the difference? Seem you're talking through your hat! What do you know about nuclear weapons that I don't? Studying nuclear doctrines and theater NW deployment is something that I've been into for more than a couple of decades. So don't yarn me dude! There's something more than meets the not too discerning eye here!

I agree in principle that the new models envisaged in the "Reliable Replacement Warheads (RRW) Program", could eventually replace all warheads, probably not add to them. But the U.S. is conducting nuclear research with the intent of developing next-generation nuclear warheads. Research of new, exotic approaches is proceeding on several tracks, for example, "microfusion" weapons and "isomer" bombs.

That apart, another component of next-generation nuclear rearmament is new infrastructure for producing refurbished or new-type nuclear warheads. The centerpiece of that new capability will be the "Modern Pit Facility" (MPF). MPF production capacity will dwarf current production rates when it becomes operational in 2018. (If substantial nuclear disarmament were envisioned to be in progress by mid-century, this huge investment in expanded nuclear weapons infrastructure would hardly seem justified.)

Better guidance systems resulting in smaller CEPs, and greater thrust to weight ratios will result in enhanced yield delivery at predesignated targets, and therefore more casualties in a 'counter Value' scenario, which can be measured from an ADT (Atomic Damage Template). Even a 500m difference in ground zero could result in thousands of additional casualties with the same nominal yield.

And finally, the capacity already exists to destroy the world six times over! How many more times do we need with the new capability?

Cheers!



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 02:52 AM
link   
We need to replace deteriorating warheads with new ones to MAINTAIN the current stockpile. And russia and china have no right to complain, what about the new topol-m launch vehicles and their new nuclear weapons?



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 03:00 AM
link   
As XphilesPhan indicated (and has been said in other threads regarding this issue), this is simply a more reliable design replacing an old design as those weapons are retired, dismantled and replaced. With the expected greater reliabilty of the new weapons, actually the total number needed in our nuclear deterrent stockpile will decrease.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Didn't the US sign an agreement with Russia (I think it was either just before or just after the end of the Cold War) stating that both powers would decrease their stockpile of warheads? From what I remember, this didn't prohibit the development of new warheads or missiles but did prevent increases in the number of warheads.

Or have I just dreamt this?



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ste2652
Didn't the US sign an agreement with Russia (I think it was either just before or just after the end of the Cold War) stating that both powers would decrease their stockpile of warheads? From what I remember, this didn't prohibit the development of new warheads or missiles but did prevent increases in the number of warheads.

Or have I just dreamt this?


No. This was the now dead-as-a-dodo START II.

Although portions of the U.S. nuclear arsenal are being retired (due to age and/or technical obsolescence) many deployed systems are being replaced by improved models undergoing modernization upgrades.

Land-based MX missiles were scheduled for "retirement" but the MX silos are being retained rather than destroyed, as would have been required under the now defunct START II. MX missiles will be retained in a reserve force for potential redeployment or other missions, as part of the NPR "hedge" reserve.

Minuteman III missiles are being fitted with more powerful warheads and more accurate MK-12 A reentry vehicles under a 6-part, $6 billion program to improve Minuteman III accuracy and reliability and extend service life beyond 2020.

We have the equivalent of one ton of TNT to blow up every man woman and child on Earth! But hell, even that ain't enough. We gotta be sure. So, two tons maybe?

Cheers! Have a great day!



[edit on 5-3-2007 by mikesingh]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 01:43 AM
link   
There was major reductions in the US & Russian nuclear stockpiles. I dont know how many warheads have been recycled, but I knew quite a few have been. The megatons-to-megawatts program was designed to use the plutonium in russian bombs in american reactors. I know that we have dismantled several silos and welded the doors back so the russians could verify the missiles were destroyed.

I think its a bit naive to think that the Russia and the US will completely abandon nuclear weapons. For the most part, its what keeps the world balanced.




top topics



 
3

log in

join