New U.S. nuclear warhead design chosen (WTF

[wakeme2008]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-02-nuclear-design_x.htm

New U.S. nuclear warhead design chosen
Updated 3/2/2007 12:43 PM ET E-mail | Save | Print | Subscribe to stories like this Subscribe to stories like this
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration selected a design Friday for a new generation of atomic warheads, taking a major step toward building the first new nuclear weapon since the end of the Cold War two decades ago.

The military and the Energy Department selected a design developed by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California over a competing design by the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, according to government sources who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of a formal announcement.

The decision to move ahead with the warhead, which eventually would replace the existing arsenal of weapons, has been criticized as sending the wrong signal to the world at a time when the United States is assailing attempts at nuclear weapons development in North Korea and Iran and striving to contain it.

...more at link......

[daleo]

1. This issue will be bathed in technical jargon

But I wonder if they are sneaking some real-world change it with the update. Maybe enhanced bunker buster capability.

[bigtree]

30. absolutely

the new plants are intended by the administration to be dual-use, formatted later to accommodate their bunker-busters.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Why are we even still making these things?!

[ThomCat]

3. My thoughts exactly.

If we can already destroy all life on earth a few hundred times, do we need more nukes?

[sarcasmo]

22. So we can blame the Taliban for stealing them.

[VTMechEngr]

25. Cheaper to maintain a newer design.

More reliable nukes, with lesser maintenance costs = $$$$$$$

[bigtree]

31. and, a foot in the door for the next generation of nuclear weaponry

[WindRavenX]

33. because the world is run by men with very, very small penises

NT

[Forkboy]

62. Nah...something even worse

Small minds.

[Union Thug]

4. I hate these people. n/t

[sinkingfeeling]

5. Exactly how many anti-nuclear proliferation treaties have we broken now?

[0007]

6. We've broken the ones that haven't even been made yet. n/t

[ProudDad]

66. All of them

and we're the only bloodthirsty bastards that have used the fucking things too!!!!

[Heidi]

7. Kick.

:kick:

[54anickel]

8. Govt. Picks Design for Nuclear Warhead

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6453361,00.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration took a major step Friday toward building a new generation of nuclear warheads, selecting a design that is being touted as safer, more secure and more easily maintained than today's arsenal.

A team of scientists from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory will proceed with the weapons design with an anticipation that the first warheads may be ready by 2012 as a replacement for Trident missiles on submarines.

The new weapons program, which has received cautious support from Congress, was immediately criticized by some nuclear nonproliferation groups as a signal that the government wants to expand nuclear weapons production - not move toward eliminating the stockpile.

Critics also maintain that it sends the wrong signal around the world by pushing a new warhead - although characterized as a replacement for existing ones- at a time the United States is trying to curtail nuclear weapons development in North Korea and Iran.

more...


New Nuclear Warheads for Bush

It was reported today that the Bush administration has decided to move forward with their plans to 'refurbish' the existing nuclear arsenal, designating the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California over the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico for the project if it happens to get the funding from the, so-far, reluctant Congress. The warheads are said to be destined for the nation's 'sea-based' nuclear weapons as part of the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile system.

In September 2000, PNAC drafted a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." The conservative foundation- funded report was authored by Bill Kristol, John Bolton and others. The report called for: ". . . significant, separate allocation of forces and budgetary resources over the next two decades for missile defense," and claimed that, despite the "residue of investments first made in the mid- and late 1980s, over the past decade, the pace of innovation within the Pentagon had slowed measurably." Also that, "without the driving challenge of the Soviet military threat, efforts at innovation had lacked urgency."

The PNAC report asserted that "while long-range precision strikes will certainly play an increasingly large role in U.S. military operations, American forces must remain deployed abroad, in large numbers for decades and that U.S. forces will continue to operate many, if not most, of today's weapons systems for a decade or more." The PNAC document encouraged the military to "develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world."

The paper claimed that, "Potential rivals such as China were anxious to exploit these technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea were rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they sought to dominate. Also that, information and other new technologies – as well as widespread technological and weapons proliferation – were creating a 'dynamic' that might threaten America's ability to exercise its 'dominant' military power."

more...

[3waygeek]

9. Look on the bright side...

every decision the Bushies have made has been wrong, so the new nukes will probably be duds.

[Swede Atlanta]

10. I'm so excited

Geesh....... A new design for planned world-wide destruction. I can't wait.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

11. All nuclear weapons should be destroyed.

No country has the right to use them.

[youngdem]

12. Makes me laugh thinking about this group of retarded monkeys picking out a nuclear weapon design

Hilarious if it weren't so....so....Dr. Strangelove.

[54anickel]

13. Made me think of Nigel helping Andy in The Devil Wears Prada. Flinging through

racks and racks of nukes, looking for the one that's just right.

[Hekate]

15. That's it exactly. Gods these people are insane. nt

[HuffleClaw]

14. in a nice pastel?

or possibly paisly?

[IndianaGreen]

16. Just what we needed, a new H-bomb costing nearly a trillion dollars!

The mushroom cloud of the first test of a hydrogen bomb is
seen in a 1952 file photo. The Bush administration is
planning to develop a new hydrogen bomb - undermining
efforts to stop nuclear proliferation. (Handout/Reuters

Published on Friday, March 2, 2007 by the Los Angeles Times

US to Develop New Hydrogen Bomb

by Ralph Vartabedian

The cost of the development is secret, though outside experts said it would cost billions of dollars — perhaps tens of billions — to develop the bomb, build factories to restart high-volume weapons production and then assemble the weapons.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0302-02.htm

[54anickel]

19. Not exactly the the "Jobs Program" I was hoping for *sigh*...n/t

[54anickel]

20. Oops, should have read the entire article first....no jobs program here

The program is not expected to create a surge in employment at any of the labs

[bigtree]

34. this congresswoman seems worried about her district where the nuke Lab is located

Tauscher, D-Alamo, took the stage as keynote speaker before a Washington, D.C., conference sponsored by Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos nuclear weapons labs and stressed that she thought the administration's case for nuclear bunker busters and other new kinds of nuclear weapons was "unpersuasive."

But Tauscher said she backed replacing the current U.S. arsenal with newly designed bombs called "reliable, replacement warheads" or RRWs, that would be manufactured and fielded without explosive nuclear testing.

"As many of you know, I am strong believer in RRW, because I am a strong believer in you and the work that you do," she told an audience of weapons scientists, government officials and defense contractors at the Strategic Weapons in the 21st Century conference in a speech first reported in Thursday's edition of InsideDefense.

As benefits of the new bombs, she cited rejuvenation of the factories and labs that maintain U.S. nuclear arms and eliminating doubts about the reliability of existing Hydrogen bombs as an obstacle to ratifying the test ban treaty.

If new warheads can't be made and fielded without testing, Tauscher said, "I see no alternative but to terminate funding for the program."

But if, as Bush administration and lab officials have promised, the new warheads can be deployed without live explosive testing, she said, "then ratifying the CTBT should be a central objective of our nation."

http://origin.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/localnews/ci_5150955

[ProudDad]

67. Taucher's a fraud

she's from the affluent white area of Contra Costa County -- where the rich fucks live. Her district is one of those "safe" districts since a lot of the repuke areas were given to Pombo in order to make his district "safe" (ooops)...

She's a disgusting corporate tool.

[VegasWolf]

17. We must stop the Bush maladministration from having nuclear weapons at all costs. Hey Bush,

st a good example for Iran. Oh, I forgot, you are a lying hypocrite!!!

[struggle4progress]

18. Quick! Look over there! Iran! Eeeeek!

[bigtree]

32. link to 'New Nuclear Warheads . . .'

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_070302_new_nuclear_warheads.htm

[JohnyCanuck]

21. Welcome to the new arm's race - same as the old arms race.

Putin and the Geopolitics of the New Cold War: Or, what happens when Cowboys don’t shoot straight like they used to…
by F. William Engdahl

SNIP

During the early 1990s, at the end of the Cold War, the Yeltsin government had asked Washington for a series of mutual reductions in the size of each superpower’s nuclear missile and weapons arsenal. Russian nuclear stockpiles were ageing and Moscow saw little further need to remain armed to its nuclear teeth once the Cold War had ended.

Washington clearly saw in this a golden opportunity to go for nuclear primacy, for the first time since the 1950’s, when Russia first developed Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile delivery capability for its growing nuclear weapons arsenal.

Nuclear primacy is an aggressive offensive policy. It means that one superpower, USA, would have the possibility to launch a full nuclear First Strike at Russia’s nuclear sites and destroy enough targets in the first blow, that Russia would be crippled from making any effective retaliation.

With no credible threat of retaliation, Russia had no credible nuclear deterrent. It was at the mercy of the supreme power. Never before in history had the prospect of such ultimate power in the hands of one single nation seemed so near at hand.

This stealthy move by the Pentagon for Nuclear Primacy has, up until now, been carried out in utmost secrecy, disguised amid rhetoric of a USA-Russia ‘Partnership for Peace.’

Rather than take advantage of the opportunity to climb down from the brink of nuclear annihilation following the end of the Cold War, Washington has turned instead to upgrading its nuclear arsenal, at the same time it was reducing its numbers.

While the rest of the world was still in shock over the events of September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration unilaterally moved to rip up its earlier treaty obligations with Russia to not build an anti-missile defense.

On December 13, 2001, President Bush announced that the United States Government was unilaterally abandoning the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia, and committing $8 billion for the 2002 Budget to build a National Missile Defense system. It was pushed through Congress, promoted as a move to protect US territory from rogue terror attacks, from states including North Korea or Iraq.

The rogue argument was a fraud, a plausible cover story designed to sneak the policy reversal through without debate, in the wake of the September 11 shock.

The repeal of the ABM Treaty was little understood outside qualified military circles. In fact, it represented the most dangerous step by the United States towards nuclear war since the 1950’s. Washington is going at a fast pace to the goal of total nuclear superiority globally, Nuclear Primacy.

Washington has dismantled its highly lethal MX missiles by 2005. But that’s misleading. At the same time, it significantly improved its remaining ICBM’s by installing the MX’s high-yield nuclear warheads and advanced re-entry vehicles on its Minuteman ICBMs. The guidance system of the Minuteman has been upgraded to match that of the dismantled MX.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ENG20070220&articleId=4873

[54anickel]

23. Bump

[w4rma]

24. A waste of resources. (nt)

[BigBadJohnny]

26. New Nuke Missile Design

As a political observor, and featured writer for XOMBA.com, the issue of the new missile design is of great interest. Some members of the Democratic Underground may find my article, "America presents: A New Generation Of Nuclear Missile", interesting and informative.



Click For Xombyte

[NYC]

63. I'll go read it.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[Joe Bacon]

27. What color is the new warhead's painted cross going to be?

A Red, white and blue cross speckled with stars and stripes?????

[Pavulon]

28. LANL and LLNL

and weapons design have been ongoing for many years. This did not start in 2000.

Nuclear weapons have shelf lives. The reality is that the us will continue to be a nuclear state. That means building modern weapons and the method to deliver them. The genie will never be back in the bottle.

England is renewing their weapons design, the rest will follow.

This is a phase out of some old shit (b61, 30 year old weapons). It should reduce the total count of weapons.

[gravity]

29. I actually think that this is a good idea

Our military needs nuclear weapons, since its the greatest deterent against an attack to this nation. I am not an expert, but I don't think our existing stockpiles will have an unlimited shelf life, and that they need to be replaced eventually.

I really don't have a problem with building new warheads, as long as he dismantle our old ones. I am still skeptical that 2000 warheads is much safer than 6000 warheads, since I think using one is too much.

The only problem is that it could send the wrong message to our enemies.

[WindRavenX]

35. LOL

Our military needs nuclear weapons, since its the greatest deterent against an attack to this nation

Sure it is. That's why the US has never been attacked--oh wait.

:rofl: :rofl:

1 warhead is 1 warhead too many--nuclear weapons should never be used.

[Sterling]

36. Kid yourself if you like but it is absolutely true.

nt

[WindRavenX]

39. Oh, I'm not the one kidding myself

If you think that building up nuclear weapons is safe or a sound "deterrent", I'm not the one sipping the Kool-Aid.

We should be actively dismantling any and all stockpiles. Nuclear winter is a very real threat.

But hey...if you like high-stakes threats (and by high-stakes, I mean essentially the world), be my guest.

People think nukes are the ones we drooped in Japan. Oh no, they're firecrackers to the ones we have today.

[sanskritwarrior]

37. And that's why having the most modern one is a good idea

nuclear weapons will never be used against us because we have 1 + X nuclear weapons.........

[WindRavenX]

40. did you forget the sarcasm smiley?

Because it's reading like its from Dr.Strangelove.

[sanskritwarrior]

42. I don't think so

n/t

[WindRavenX]

43. You might want to rethink your logic then

Having an extra nuke over "the enemy" won't mean a lot if the world is unable to support human (or for that matter, relatively any) life.

So yeah! Let's build some x-tra deadly nukes just in case a few cockroaches survive! That'll show 'em!

[sanskritwarrior]

44. Sorry I'm in the military

I see the potential deterrent nukes give a country. That doesn't make me a bad person, it just means I see it differently than you do.

Namaste

[WindRavenX]

45. No, it probably just means you're brainwashed

Without the miltary industrial complex, things would be a lot different. The fact that you have no problem with a build-up of an weapon that can literally eliminate human life on this planet is disturbing.

I long for the day when the Pentagon needs a bake sale to buy a bomber.

[sanskritwarrior]

46. That's kind of rude

dontcha think??

I just have a different opinion from you. I am not brainwashed, I am not a drone. I see a reason to support the addition of newer model nuclear weapons, you do not. Neither of us are bad people, we just see this issue differently. How about losing the attitude?

[WindRavenX]

47. Not all opinions carry the same weight

You have presented a situation that has no baring in reality when it has been shown that nuclear proliferation has the potential (and we've nearly been in a few, so we've had a few close shaves already) to wipe out life.

There is no rational OR moral argument for nuclear buildup or "modernizing" our existing stockpile. None.

If you have an issue with my attitude, use the ignore feature.

[sanskritwarrior]

48. Oh so this is a case of

you are right and I am wrong and I should just get to the back of the bus..........I think there is a rational argument, that argument is as long as other countries have nuclear weapons I believe the US should own them. That works for me, it does not work for you. Again we see the isue differently and we may both be right, we may both be wrong.........

[WindRavenX]

49. "get to the back of the bus"

Yeah, somehow I think that analogy doesn't work. I'm not discriminating against an entire class of people--nice try.

This isn't a simple "right or wrong" issue. Having nuclear weapons just because someone else has them is a weak rationale because it doesn't matter if we have the ability to counter-strike-- if someone, any country, uses a nuclear strike it won't matter.

No one wins nuclear war because the entire planet is kaput.

[gravity]

50. It's a deterrent

Nuclear weapons can ironically bring peace since it makes the cost of going to war much worst than any of the benefits even if you do win.

Having nuclear weapons doesn't mean that you will use them, it just means that you CAN use them, so no one better attack you unless they wouldn't mind losing a couple cities in the process.

I wish nuclear weapons were never created, but as long as other countries posses them, it's in our best interest to have our own to deter attacks from them. It's an necessary evil.

[sanskritwarrior]

52. Agreed

n/t

[Sterling]

59. Agreed agreed

Other than terrorist organizations I don't see the US ever being attacked in a domestic invasion or by nuke given the price to be paid by the guilty nation.

Should he world be free of Nukes? Sure, as soon as we figure out how not to have wars.

[WindRavenX]

53. No it's not

This is ridiculous. There is no proof that having nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent of any kind. It's a fallacy of logic.

I have a rock. I don't see any tigers around, so the rock must be be deterring the tigers from attacking me.

[sanskritwarrior]

56. LOL

apples and oranges......

a rock aint gonna threaten anyone. A 3 Megaton Nuclear weapon capable of destroying a city, now that's deterrence......I'm done with you, this is going nowhere. You seem hellbent on calling people brainwashed, crazy, and disturbed if they disagree with you. There is no need to continue a conversation with so judgemental a person.

Again, Namaste

[sanskritwarrior]

51. I said I'm in the military

you said I must be brainwashed then.......sounds like discrimination to me.

Like I said I think it is rational and moral to possess nuclear weapons to deter other countries. You do not think so. Last time I checked you don't get to decide what I think or believe in.......Tell u what I'll check the ballot again.


Ballot question: Does Wind Raven X have the right to tell Sanskrit Warrior what is rational or moral? Yes__ No X

There I apparently voted no, so that means we agree to disagree and you can drop your pompous I'm right you're wrong schtick......

[WindRavenX]

54. anyone who thinks nuclear weapons are moral in any situation is crazy

Unbelievable.

[sanskritwarrior]

55. Ok now you are calling me crazy?

Are you trying to dig yourself a hole?

I just believe differently than you do. End of story. How about you not judge me, I will never judge you.

[bigtree]

38. these scientists disagree that our arsenal is deteriorating

Experts decline to endorse new nuclear arsenal
Uncertain cost benefits and ban on testing raise problems, scientists say

. . . an early report from a panel assembled by the American Association for the Advancement of Science — most of them former Energy Department or nuclear-weapons lab executives — found many of the benefits of the new warheads distant in time and uncertain, and said there is no clear evidence of future breakdown in the existing nuclear arsenal.

"I think the uncertainty is serious, and it's legitimate, but it's not yet empirical," said panel chairman and physicist C. Bruce Tarter, former director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which is competing to lead development of the first of the new warheads.

The panel also said it was impossible based on information available now to judge the administration's new warheads against the current course of simply maintaining the bombs and warheads designed, tested and fielded during the Cold War.

"If there aren't numbers for costs or schedules, how do you know it's better than what you're doing?" Tarter said.

more: http://origin.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/localnews/ci_5258430


Union of Concerned Scientists say new nuclear warhead design unnecessary

Below is a statement by Dr. Robert Nelson, a physicist and senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global Security Program.

"There is no technical reason to replace existing U.S. nuclear warheads, because they are already highly reliable. According to the Energy Department's own research, the core plutonium components in current weapons will last at least 85 years and possibly much longer. New designs are more likely to introduce new uncertainties.

"It is dangerous that the Energy Department wants to pay for the new warheads by cutting funds for maintaining the existing stockpile, a strategy that will make current weapons less reliable.

"Building these new warheads also will increase pressure to test them. The United States has never deployed a new nuclear warhead without conducting a nuclear explosive test. Since 1992, we've had a moratorium on nuclear testing, but this new weapons program opens the door to new testing.

"Building these new warheads will restart the Cold War cycle of designing and producing new nuclear weapons. Instead, the United States needs a thorough review of its outdated nuclear weapons policy, under which it keeps thousands of warheads on high-alert status. Rather than building new nuclear weapons, the United States should be looking for ways to reduce its reliance on them."

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/commentary/new-nuclear-warhead-design-0012.html

[WindRavenX]

41. yeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaw!!!

[SKKY]

57. This is very important folks. Don't discount this just yet....

...Because it's not enough in this day and age to really fuck up the world. Now, with the new threats that N. Korea, Iran, and The Boogey Man present, we have to push forward with a new plan. One to really, really, really fuck up the world.

[reprobate]

58. Nuke proponents are using the wrong paradym. You're thinking in the wrong century.

Any use of nuclear weapons in the future will not be the cold war strategy of nation to nation exchange. That's SO 20th century.

Let me be the first to say it: THERE IS NO DETERRENT IN HAVING NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

We do not face a threat from any nation attacking us with nukes. Korea: intel says they've used their stockpile of fissionable material. Beside which, we now have an agreement with them that we won't attack them and they won't build any more bombs.

As far as all the propaganda on Iran, latest intel says they are at least a decade away from having a workable fission device.

So we really don't face a threat from any NATION. What we face is a threat from non-state enemies. The closest analogy I can think of is poking a hornet's nest with a stick. Before the poke the hornets are going about their business and if left alone pose little risk. But stir them up and you'll have a swarm of angry weapon bearing individuals looking for revenge.

That's exactly what happened when Commander Courageous :sarcasm: attacked Iraq. Iraq HAD NO nukes. But Pakistan does. And Pakistan's Intelligence agency is led by Islamist radicals who are as likely as not to hand over their nukes to their friends in Al CIAda. Or maybe they already have.

No, we won't be nuked by Pakistan, or Korea , or Iraq or Iran. Not even Russia. Maybe England if we piss them off any more than we have.

If and when we are attacked it will be by non-state groups. And the more that we swing our big guns around the more likely we are to be attacked. So if al CIAda nukes us, just who do we retaliate against? Left to Bush, probably New Orleans. But seriously, in the case of attack by non-state agents, just who do we seek revenge against? And what good will our horribly expensive nuclear stockpile do us in this case?

The big question then becomes just which American city do we want to lose? New York? Chicago? Miami? I don't think we'll get to pick, but you can bet your ass that unless America changes it's attitude and starts supporting democracies instead of dictatorships, we WILL lose at least one.

Maybe then we'll see that war is no longer a viable political tool in the 21st century. Think of the good that could be done if the Offense department were turned in to a Peace Department.

[Sterling]

60. No, we won't be nuked by Pakistan, or Korea , or Iraq or Iran. Not even Russia.

No shit, who would nuke a country that can nuke you back just as good? At this point only a terrorist org wouold do such a thing, that is thanks to our arsenal. It would be great if it were not true but it is.

[reprobate]

61. Exactly my point. Our arsenal is no deterent to our current enemies.

[krispos42]

64. I wouldn't think this would require any more nuclear material

The plutonium and uranium cores can simply be removed, reshaped and machined, and placed into the new weapon. This will save huge quantities of money, time, and nuclear processing, which means no extra nuclear waste.

That's something, I guess.

[ProudDad]

65. As Russian Ambassador Alexi de Sadesky

said when told by Premier Kissoff that the Doomsday Machine had been activated, "The Bloody fools!"


http://imdb.com/title/tt0057012/



I say they're war criminals and should be SHOT AT DAWN.

God damn them to hell...