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?

[*mipadi*]

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?

[radhikaeatsraman]

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. :)

[*kryogenix*]

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.

So you're willing to let possibly millions die, just because we have enough 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.

Do you agree that the fewer countries that have nukes, the better the international community is? The US has shown that it is pretty responsible with the use of nukes (other than the unfortunate attacks on H&N and a few tests that went awry). Would you sleep more soundly with Iran and North Korea using nukes?

The ideal solution is for all countries to get rid of their strategic nuclear arms, and we're on the way to doing that. Imagine what a nightmare it would be if all of East Asia had nukes.

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...

[sakaitone]

We did that over 50 years ago...

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?

[*kryogenix*]

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?

There hasn't been a nuclear weapon used in anger since... And that's what we're trying to prevent.