Should the US make new nukes? Options

[*mipadi*]

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

Should the US invest in new nuclear weapons, or could this possible trigger a new arms war with Russia and/or China?

[radhikaeatsraman]

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.

[*kryogenix*]

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.

That's the thing. People say we're never going to use them. However, if we did not have nuclear technology but the Soviet Union had it, do you think they would have hesitated to nuke us? Having a strategic nuclear weapons arsenal is useful in deterring other countries with strategic nuclear capabilities.

Just like guns. It's better to have them and not need them, rather than to need them and not have them.

Look up guns vs. butter. It's the first thing you learn when you take economics. A country will have to decide whether to put their money into guns (defence) or butter (improvements). A country that spends too much on butter will be wiped out when a rogue nation attacks, but a country that spends too much on guns will be left behind and get worn out.

As I said, we should have just enough strategic arms in order to act as a deterrent. However, I think if we need tactical nukes, we should go ahead and build them.

And yeah, I'm against nuclear proliferation too. So I don't think we should just "let" other countries have them either. A nuclear armed East Asia is a scary thought.