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]

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?

It's difficult to discuss ethics and justice in an abstract, philosophical sense. In international relations, when different nations have different agendas, compromises that may not be absolutely logical or "fair" must be made in order to maintain global security. Yes, from a logical perspective, the NPT isn't fair. How can we allow certain nations to have nuclear weapons and deny other nations the right to possess them?

But practically speaking, when the NPT was created, none of the five nations in possession of nuclear weapons were willing to sacrifice them. Requiring disarmament would lead to a diplomatic deadlock, and nothing would be accomplished. Thus, the NPT aims at preventing further proliferation in exchange for gradual disarmament of the nuclear weapon states. Is it fair? No. Is it practical? Yes.

However, there are certain aspects of the NPT that I believe should be modified or expanded, including the mandate of the IAEA, retribution for withdrawal, and measures ensuring that the nuclear weapon states are committing to eventual disarmament of their nuclear arsenals. I'm not in any way an expert on the NPT, so I don't know how to practically go about making these changes, but I do think that they are necessary in order to ensure the effectiveness of the NPT.

It doesn't seem fair....treaties are meant to supply PEACE, not who can have nukes and who can't. This is so 2nd grade. A second grader has 2 cupcakes, and she has two friends who both want a cupcake. Of course, she wants one for herself since it's hers, she gets it but who should get the other one? The one that's nicer to her or the one who has been her friend longer? The reasonable answer is cut the cupcake in half. But how are the countries going to cut the amount of nukes into even amounts. Not everyone is willing to share... So I really don't think it's fair, they should all have the same amount of nukes and I hope it would be a small amount.

Sure, that system works out when you're distributing frosting-covered cupcakes.. but not necessarily if you're dealing with deadly weapons. First of all, realize that some governments are essentially dangerous. Their decision-making processes are centralized, and their officials are often corrupt enough to sell nuclear material to non-governmental bodies, including terrorist groups. Secondly, it *sounds* logical to distribute nuclear weapons evenly throughout the international community, but this solution ignores the structure if our global system. Giving all nations the ability to possess nuclear weapons would create fear and instability and would certainly topple any sense of unity or security.

Realize that international relations is all about practicality and feasibility.. not necessarily "fairness".