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: 99 Joined: Apr 2006 Member No: 399,520 ![]() |
I am not arguing that weapons did in fact create leverage, all I am saying is that have we not seen what it has done? Can't we tell what is going to happen to us? I am so afraid that one day we are just going to blow ourselves up. Doesn't anyone else worry about that?
Haha, nice monty python reference! xD |
|
|
*kryogenix* |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Guest ![]() |
I am not arguing that weapons did in fact create leverage, all I am saying is that have we not seen what it has done? Can't we tell what is going to happen to us? I am so afraid that one day we are just going to blow ourselves up. Doesn't anyone else worry about that? Haha, nice monty python reference! xD Can't we tell what would happen if we didn't create weapons? The Cold War went the way we did because we competed with the Soviet Union to the point of its collapse. QUOTE(medic) There is no need to make new Nukes. The US never really plans on using them, the closet we came was the Cold War, and those nukes are not used anymore. The US has the most high tech Nuclear program in the world, not to mention we have electronic pulse weapons that can do the damage that a nuke can, without the contamination and the deaths. There will be no county in the world that has a more high tech military then the US. Half the world works on US designed defenses anyway, the MIG jet is a exact copy of the F fighters, and the AK47 is a Russian copy of American weapon technology. Germany in WWII was smarter then the US military wise, but that all died when Hitler shot himself. Putting a faraday cage or some kind of emp shielding can nullify an EMP weapon. Also, EMPs have the potential of causing damage to civilians just as well. Detonate an EMP next to a hospital and you have people with no access to life support systems. Which MiG are you talking about? To be fair, the US actually took the swept wing idea for fighter jets from the MiG-15. Yes, MiGs started to be designed specifically to counter US aircraft (like the MiG-25) or designed after US aircraft themselves (like the Tu-4). And yes, the Russians did copy our missile technology. But check out the specifications for the Soviet Moskit missile and look at our Cold War era Harpoon missile and tell me which one is superior. Anyway, I stand by my original arguement that if we are to no longer produce new weapons, at least convert existing systems to tactical weapons from strategic weapons. As for the EMPs, when they don’t have electronic systems, they can not do any counter attacks if they have no way of communication and more. A nuke is always last resort on all fronts, it can kill the target, but also kill millions of civilians in the same hit. EMP’s can fry all tanks, cars, plains, and communication and make way for a attack. As for the AK47, I meant to say the AK47 was copied into the M16. And yet the M16 is as widely used as the AK47 by countries that the US gives it to. [edit] |
|
|
![]()
Post
#4
|
|
![]() Seoul Rocks! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Member Posts: 936 Joined: Jun 2005 Member No: 155,811 ![]() |
Wrong again. Eugene Stoner didn't design the M16 until 1957. There are attributes of AK47 that are easy to be noticed in the M16. The M16 uses some base technology from the AK47, but yet there are differences as well. One difference happens to be one is plastic and the other is not. |
|
|
![]() ![]() |