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?

[innovation]

First of all, we're not debating the morality of the Chinese government. We're debating US nuclear policy.

Secondly, kryogenix, what is the difference between strategic and tactical weapons?

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?

According to the NPT, the five nuclear weapon states (NWS) are the US, the UK, the Russian Federation, China, and France. Non-nuclear weapon states that have signed the NPT have also agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons, and thus, by international law, Iran may not possess nuclear weapons, since it is subject to the NPT.

North Korea withdrew from the NPT, but that shouldn't excuse it from offenses committed before withdrawal. Here lies a flaw within the NPT-- no retribution for offensive nations after withdrawal from the NPT. That's why there has been so much discussion about inserting an exit clause that in some ways punishes nations from withdrawing.

However, I do agree that the US hasn't exactly been abiding by the NPT either. In this treaty, the NWS, including the US, agreed to commit to reduction of arms and eventual disarmament. My question is.. are these new weapons meant to replace the old ones? In other words, will the US destroy old weapons in exchange for fewer new weapons (if that makes any sense)?