Labs Compete to Make New Nuclear Bomb

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the San Francisco Bay area and the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico are competing to design the nation's first new nuclear bomb in two decades.

Scientists at both facilities are working around the clock on plans that will be presented to the Nuclear Weapons Council, a federal panel that oversees the nation's nuclear weapons. The council will choose a winner later this year.

"I have had people working nights and weekends," said Joseph Martz, the head of the Los Alamos design team. "I have to tell them to go home. I can't keep them out of the office."

Congress approved the new bomb, known as the reliable replacement warhead, with bipartisan support in 2005 as part of a defense spending bill. The weapon would, by law, have the same explosive power as existing warheads.

Proponents of the project say the U.S. would lose its so-called "strategic deterrent" unless it replaces its aging arsenal of about 6,000 bombs, which will become potentially unreliable within 15 years. A new, more reliable weapon, they say, would help the nation reduce its stockpile.

Critics say the project could trigger a new arms race with Russia and China, and undercut arguments that countries such as Iran and North Korea must stop their nuclear programs.

The United States and Russia signed a treaty in 2002 calling for the countries to each cut nuclear inventories to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads by 2012.

Source

I think we should try and keep other countries from having neuclear weapons, and build them ourselves It's a doggy dog world out there, and if we need to defend ourselves, then we should

because, we have to be #1... ever heard of the saying "what mother doesn't know won't hurt her."... what they don't know won't hurt them....

because, we have to be #1... ever heard of the saying "what mother doesn't know won't hurt her."... what they don't know won't hurt them....
its not a moral issue

NO.
Why invest money in weapons we're never going to use when we can use that money for the education system or health care...something that will directly benefit the people?

How on earth are more weapons going to help us? If other countries want to build weapons, let them. Let's just do what we can to improve our country and not be the international police.

doesnt matter if u nuke china, we have so many ppl we'll just bum rush u and friggin own the U.S. real hard

At what point, though, do we say we have enough weapons? We have thousands of warheads. As of the mid-1990s, we had over 8000 nuclear warheads. The number may have come down a bit, but not that much.

Do we really need thousands and thousands of warheads to be a deterrent?

Furthermore, how do we tell Iran and North Korea they can't have nukes, when we have the biggest stockpile of any country in the world?

doesnt matter if u nuke china, we have so many ppl we'll just bum rush u and friggin own the U.S. real hard

They can't have them because getting them would make them a bigger threat to us.

At what point, though, do we say we have enough weapons? We have thousands of warheads. As of the mid-1990s, we had over 8000 nuclear warheads. The number may have come down a bit, but not that much.

Do we really need thousands and thousands of warheads to be a deterrent?

Furthermore, how do we tell Iran and North Korea they can't have nukes, when we have the biggest stockpile of any country in the world?

Agreed. If we already have thousands of nukes, why on earth should we make more? If Iran and North Korea want to make weapons of their own, we should just let them be. If they try to attack us, we have enough weapons to defend ourselves with.

Quite frankly, I think nuclear weapons are unnecessary. We really should partially disarm.

But that's not going to happen any time soon. :)

because, we have to be #1... ever heard of the saying "what mother doesn't know won't hurt her."... what they don't know won't hurt them....
its not a moral issue

Agreed. If we already have thousands of nukes, why on earth should we make more? If Iran and North Korea want to make weapons of their own, we should just let them be. If they try to attack us, we have enough weapons to defend ourselves with.

That's the argument from the US side, but like I said before, that doesn't hold much sway in the world community. Clearly it's a bit one-sided to unilaterally say that one nation can have them, but others can't.

If we make things as powerful as the atomic bomb we would wreck havoc upon the world. The Iran war is considered the 4th world war

We did that over 50 years ago...

doesnt matter if u nuke china, we have so many ppl we'll just bum rush u and friggin own the U.S. real hard

Does that matter? When the U.S. bombed Japan. Most people don't learn from thier mistakes and as they say history repeats itself. If we learned from the 1st war we had to not have war, do you think there would no war in history after that 1st war? If we had learned not to have war, would be discussing having nukes right now?

What the f**k? Is china really f**ked up? Are they seriously going to let people died no matter what?

Whoa, there are some moral issues.

Maybe, that’s why China is label one of top “smartest” countries because they have a pretty high amount of knowledge. They don’t care about moral educations or what?
Beside, is China a wealthy city? why is their enviroment so bad?

You asked if China is a city? You're joking right? It's the world's 3rd largest country and you ask if it's a city. Are you failing Social Studies? No offense.

Honestly, Spiritual Winged Aura you can't assume China has moral issues based on what ONE person said. That's so close minded, you're stereo-typing the Chinese goverment based on a person who spends their time online making empty threats, that probably don't have that much power in goverment anyway. There are millions, maybe even billions of people in China and you're going to throw away sense and make assumtions about a WHOLE country on ONE person. I don't want to be rude but that's pretty stupid.

You asked if China is a city? You're joking right? It's the world's 3rd largest country and you ask if it's a city. Are you failing Social Studies? No offense.

Honestly, Spiritual Winged Aura you can't assume China has moral issues based on what ONE person said. That's so close minded, you're stereo-typing the Chinese goverment based on a person who spends their time online making empty threats, that probably don't have that much power in goverment anyway. There are millions, maybe even billions of people in China and you're going to throw away sense and make assumtions about a WHOLE country on ONE person. I don't want to be rude but that's pretty stupid.

How can we argue that it's okay for us to not only have nukes, but make nukes, yet it's not okay for, say, Iran or North Korea to do the same?

I understand that legally, there are certain treaties forbidding some nations from having nuclear weapons. I'm asking the question in the context of morals and ethics. Are these treaties even ethical or fair? Why or why not?

......... so ?

we have the checks and balance crap.

one can override the president's decisions.

we have representatives, senate .. and etc.

And that doesnt stop them from bombing us.What the hell can balance checks do to help us from being bombed.If they bomb us this whole world dies because of the chemicals will travel in the wind.

No the us should not make nukes and we should try to prevent bush'es dumb a$$ from getting us into foreign affairs that we shouldnt be in because now korea vowed to bomb us with a nuke if we attack pre-emphitaly <--i cant spell that but oh well.And if a nuke is blasted,its the end of the world because the chemicals in the bomb is so bad and it will spread every where because of the wind,and it will travel around the world.Killing us.

Wind? Do you mean radiation or something? Are you saying that if they bomb the U.S. that it will eventually kill the world? Hey, they bombed Japan and the rest of us aren't dead.

one nuke wont destroy the world now if we blasted every single nukes from a single boomer then the world could be destroy. forgot how many we have around the world

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... i was testing his knowledge with load of question marks.

I know China isnt really f**ked up before anyone mentioned it . i wasnt intentionally speaking directly about China. In a way, i was only making that dude look more "uneducated" with my rude questions. Since he was rambling his outrageous video thoughts, i would like to act retarded as well … of course, for fun.

however, where are you from? i guess, our form of comprehending language is probably a bit different. And i accept that.

Thats because it wasnt a nuke.

Please dont tell me that,im scared off my a$$ that korea will bomb us and i really really hope not........but anyway one nuke can destroy the world because of the radiation and the chemicals will pollute the water,and our needed sources and it will kill us slowly.For now all america can do is pray that it wont happen.

uh duhhhh i think you should stop taking everything i say seriously cuz honestly i like to dick around on these forums a lot

"is china really such a rich city?"
yes, china is a very rich city, especially with all these subcities like shanghai and beijing uh duhhrrrr gg try passing world studies before you start saying i look 'uneducated'

I think we should try and keep other countries from having neuclear weapons, and build them ourselves It's a doggy dog world out there, and if we need to defend ourselves, then we should

You asked if China is a city? You're joking right? It's the world's 3rd largest country

The area of the United States is 9,631,418 sq km, or 3,718,711 sq miles - about half the size of Russia; about three-tenths the size of Africa; about half the size of South America (or slightly larger than Brazil); slightly larger than China; about two and a half times the size of Western Europe