Should the US make new nukes? |
Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.
Should the US make new nukes? |
*mipadi* |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Guest ![]() |
QUOTE 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? |
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Pokeball, GO! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 2,832 Joined: Jul 2006 Member No: 433,009 ![]() |
^I'm not in constant fear. I think the majority of the U.S. isn't in constant fear. There's a threat, yes, but fear? That's a little much. It's a lot more complicated then you say it is. Would you rather some other country create bigger, better weapons first and then send them our way?
I don't agree with making them for no reason, but if there's a threat, sure, why not? Only as a means of defence though. I wish that we didn't have to even worry about this. Everyone needs to disarm their nukes, but that's not gonna happen, so we need to be prepared. |
|
|
![]() ![]() |