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?

[cashmere deer]

I think this has to be the easiest topic on here by far. Anyone who is for creating bigger and so called 'better' weapons in just a war monger..and no one likes those.

[*kryogenix*]

I think this has to be the easiest topic on here by far. Anyone who is for creating bigger and so called 'better' weapons in just a war monger..and no one likes those.

Not true. If I buy a gun to protect my home from burglars, am I a violent person?

Wow, you just contradicted the hell out of yourself. First we make them..but only for protection..but actually we shouldn't have in the first place? Derr, I think only any idiot would support making new weapons even if it were for defense purposes. We need to work on creating better means of arguing rather than seeing who has the most powerful artillery, that is irresponsible and just plain stupid. There is absolutely nothing that would lead to us having to create said big bad weaponry. The only other places capable of it wouldn't even attack us for any reason at all. America is in deep shit right now and building more powerful weapons might help cool everyone off for a while...but would definitely destroy us in the long run.

Let's take a second and ponder why weapons were created in the first place. Maybe our early ancestors had a discussion like this. For arguements sake, let's pretend they tried to be diplomatic in the beginning. But if resources were especially scarce, there would need to be some competition to determine who would be the one to take home the food. Using Rock, Paper, Scissors probably would not have made both sides content with the outcome. If both parties wanted the scarce resource so badly, is it unreasonable that they would use violence to make certain that they would be the one to have it? And then, when tribes formed, armies looked for better weapons in order to make killing more efficient in order to secure whatever they were after?

Having the proper weapons gives one more diplomatic leverage. This only makes sense. Imagine you wanted to cross a bridge, but a knight was guarding it. If the knight threatened to attack you, but he had no arms or legs, would you feel threatened at all by him? Perhaps he'd try to bite at your legs, but really the only damage he'll do is bleed on you.