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
|
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Member Posts: 1,746 Joined: Oct 2004 Member No: 52,931 ![]() |
QUOTE Of course it is. Have we not already reached the point of almost constant fear? Eventually it will all come back to us. Of course we shouldn't worsen the situation I agree that the United States should discontinue its production of nuclear weapons. In my opinion, it isn't exactly positive diplomacy to resort to expanding the defense budget whenever the U.S. feels threatened as the world's sole remaining superpower. However, I stand by my statement that ending production is not "simple". The Bush Administration and the American neocons are determined to maintain U.S. economic, political, and military dominance. It's very difficult to challenge this position, especially since rampant fear of terrorism still exists among the American public. Frankly, shifting power and influence away from those who fervently support American dominance is tricky.. not as simple as you would think. (And I must apologize for the subtle conservative/Bush-bashing there. Let me know if that sounded too partisan.) QUOTE 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? Interesting metaphor, but can it compare to the current nuclear situation? Afterall, nations pursue nuclear weapons primarily for diplomatic leverage.. but is political power a zero-sum game? Power isn't a scarce or limited resource, and surely, there are other methods for gaining diplomatic leverage over certain nations. Allowing the U.S. to dominate the global arena with few powers to "check" its decisions is rather dangerous, in my opinion. I do, however, see the logic in producing new nuclear weapons, and it's definitely not purely for the purpose of domestic defense. That would be a naive perspective to follow. The U.S. also wants to defend its role as a global superpower, and thus, the creation of new nuclear weapons acts as a method of intimidation to deter other nations from attacking or challenging U.S. power. |
|
|
![]() ![]() |