The United States Will Cut half of its Nuclear Weapons.

The United States announce yesterday that it would cut its Nuclear Arsenol by Half over the next eight years. However is it really going to be a reduction or just smoke and mirrors. Thanks to dubious counting procedures there may not be a cut at all.

"The first question is whether this is going to lead to an actual reduction in the US stockpile. I'm not sure that's absolutely the case," he told New Scientist. "The counting methods are so obscure, it's difficult to say exactly what the implications are going to be."

The nuclear stockpile can be divided into active and inactive weapons. Active weapons included operationally deployed warheads - which are attached to a delivery system such as a missile and are ready to use - as well as warheads separated from the delivery vehicles in "hedges". Inactive weapons can have their crucial components removed and stored.

The Most interesting thing is found in this quote however that basically says that within eight years the US will have new kinds of nukes.

Martin also points out that eight years is long enough for the Bush administration to push ahead with plans for creating new nuclear weapons or modifying old ones.

www.newscientist.com...

Smoke and mirrors indeed.

It would be wiser to end the proliferation altogether but this is not of interest to the cartel of warmongers who stand to lose their stake in the military industrial war machine.

Generally when something is in surplus supply and is in demand elsewhere, the proprietor can dig itself out of the economic hole it has dug itself into (a la the Bush administration) by selling off the surplus. Not in this case. Shows how stupid the investment was and is.

M.A.D. is called M.A.D. for a reason.

even if they cut it in half, we would still have more then enough nukes anyways

I agree with MA it is definetly Smoke and mirrors unless we have developed a new kind of Weapon of Mass destruction in secret to take the nukes place.

"Smoke and mirrors" it may or may not be, I'm inclined to go with the latter of the two. Russia is slowly continuing to downsize her nuclear arsenal because of continued deterioration of existing, aged stockpiles.

I found an article that may be of interest and concerns the possible direction that the US may be heading to:

There's a broiling debate about nuclear weapons going on, one reminiscent of Cold War debates over the implications of possible modifications to the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Some government officials have expressed an interest in having scientists at the national labs examine the potential for modern, precision, low-yield nuclear weapons, the prospective goal being to strengthen the U.S. capability to deter attacks. If ever developed, such capabilities would stand in contrast to the generally high yields and moderate accuracies of the remaining Cold War nuclear arsenal that was deployed to deter the Soviet Union.

Precise and Powerful: Low-yield nukes may be the deterrent we need

Personally, I feel that the US should destroy all existing nuclear WMDs and consider stockpiling Neutron bombs as a deterant until all nation's of the world agree to "end proliferation altogether".


seekerof

Yup. Its very well known the only time the govornment trashes something is when they have something better on the assembly line getting ready to come off.

We are only destroying the current nukes because we have come up with something better. This is similar to the whole commanche project getting trashed: they got something even better in the works and decided the commanche wasnt worth pursuing.

yes we dont cut or delete something without haveing a better wep totake its place, nukes have been around for 60+ years if you count atom bomb onwards to today. and allwe have are the nukes of today seems strange other mass destruction weapons havent been invented (or have they an kept secret most likely yes) so cutting nukes doesnt hurt its getting rid of old technology. In with the new Out with the old.......

Any speculation on what specific technology could replace the nuclear (noocoolar as Bush says) standards and any evidence that they already exist?

If they do exist, any ideas where they may have been tested?

Anti mater bombs allready done just can't test em... Who needs nukes when a couple grams of anti mater can wipe the planet...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Xeven
Anti mater bombs allready done just can't test em... Who needs nukes when a couple grams of anti mater can wipe the planet...

Wait a minute. From my understanding, the only way to contain Anti-Matter, was to use extremely powerful magnetic or laser systems.

How would they effectively put that in a bomb? Also, what would make it better than a Neutron Bomb?

with most of the world's navies at sea, are you sure they are not going to lob them at someone?