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?

[*kryogenix*]

I think that if are to produce new nuclear weapons, we should reduce the amount of strategic nuclear weapons and focus more on tactical nuclear weapons.

[*Uronacid*]

I think we should try and keep other countries from having neuclear weapons, and build them ourselves It's a doggy dog world out there, and if we need to defend ourselves, then we should

[*mipadi*]

I think we should try and keep other countries from having neuclear weapons, and build them ourselves It's a doggy dog world out there, and if we need to defend ourselves, then we should

How can we argue that it's okay for us to not only have nukes, but make nukes, yet it's not okay for, say, Iran or North Korea to do the same?

[*Uronacid*]

because, we have to be #1... ever heard of the saying "what mother doesn't know won't hurt her."... what they don't know won't hurt them....



its not a moral issue

[*mipadi*]

because, we have to be #1... ever heard of the saying "what mother doesn't know won't hurt her."... what they don't know won't hurt them....

That argument is going to hold almost no weight in the international community, and it's hardly going to prevent other nations from building nuclear weapons in response.

[demolished]

i believe U.S should have their own private set of wepean of mass destruction. not every countries like each other. eventually, it could lead to war. they would possibly use nuke too which is originately from U.S.

powerful knowledge should not be sold to the world. it's pathetic that bill clinton sold the recipe of nuke to other country for $. it's going to reduce the chance of U.S winning, somehow.

[radhikaeatsraman]

NO.
Why invest money in weapons we're never going to use when we can use that money for the education system or health care...something that will directly benefit the people?

How on earth are more weapons going to help us? If other countries want to build weapons, let them. Let's just do what we can to improve our country and not be the international police.

[Ington]

How can we improve our country if we get blown away? Your idea is simply horrid, it will only leave the US defenseless. There is no such thing as being the bigger person and walking away from these matters. If we let other countries build weapons and we don't, don't you think our enemies would take advantage of that?

because, we have to be #1... ever heard of the saying "what mother doesn't know won't hurt her."... what they don't know won't hurt them....
its not a moral issue

But there's a chance (a very high one) of them finding out, anyway.

We should do what we need to ensure the future of the US, but not more than that. If we don't fund nuclear weapon research and build nuclear weapons, we are easy targets. If we create too many, the world will fear us, and there is an incredible risk of attack.

Basically, we're screwed both ways, unless we're perfectly balanced.

[*kryogenix*]

NO.
Why invest money in weapons we're never going to use when we can use that money for the education system or health care...something that will directly benefit the people?

How on earth are more weapons going to help us? If other countries want to build weapons, let them. Let's just do what we can to improve our country and not be the international police.

That's the thing. People say we're never going to use them. However, if we did not have nuclear technology but the Soviet Union had it, do you think they would have hesitated to nuke us? Having a strategic nuclear weapons arsenal is useful in deterring other countries with strategic nuclear capabilities.

Just like guns. It's better to have them and not need them, rather than to need them and not have them.

Look up guns vs. butter. It's the first thing you learn when you take economics. A country will have to decide whether to put their money into guns (defence) or butter (improvements). A country that spends too much on butter will be wiped out when a rogue nation attacks, but a country that spends too much on guns will be left behind and get worn out.

As I said, we should have just enough strategic arms in order to act as a deterrent. However, I think if we need tactical nukes, we should go ahead and build them.

And yeah, I'm against nuclear proliferation too. So I don't think we should just "let" other countries have them either. A nuclear armed East Asia is a scary thought.

[*mipadi*]

At what point, though, do we say we have enough weapons? We have thousands of warheads. As of the mid-1990s, we had over 8000 nuclear warheads. The number may have come down a bit, but not that much.

Do we really need thousands and thousands of warheads to be a deterrent?

Furthermore, how do we tell Iran and North Korea they can't have nukes, when we have the biggest stockpile of any country in the world?

[magicfann]

doesnt matter if u nuke china, we have so many ppl we'll just bum rush u and friggin own the U.S. real hard

[*mipadi*]

doesnt matter if u nuke china, we have so many ppl we'll just bum rush u and friggin own the U.S. real hard

Except that China has a very limited amphibious landing capability.

[*kryogenix*]

At what point, though, do we say we have enough weapons? We have thousands of warheads. As of the mid-1990s, we had over 8000 nuclear warheads. The number may have come down a bit, but not that much.

Do we really need thousands and thousands of warheads to be a deterrent?

Furthermore, how do we tell Iran and North Korea they can't have nukes, when we have the biggest stockpile of any country in the world?

As I said, I think strategic nuclear weapons are becoming obsolete and should only be used as a deterrent. If one hundred warheads will do the same damage as ten thousand, it would make more sense to have less, if only atleast to limit upkeep costs.

They can't have them because getting them would make them a bigger threat to us. The fact of the matter is, if anyone went to strategic nuclear war with us, they would lose. Even the Soviet Union at its height could have been destroyed. The big fear is having millions of civilians wiped out. If tactical nukes were used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be taboo today.

doesnt matter if u nuke china, we have so many ppl we'll just bum rush u and friggin own the U.S. real hard

The US Navy is the best Navy in the world, China would be destroyed en route.

[*mipadi*]

They can't have them because getting them would make them a bigger threat to us.

That's the argument from the US side, but like I said before, that doesn't hold much sway in the world community. Clearly it's a bit one-sided to unilaterally say that one nation can have them, but others can't.

[radhikaeatsraman]

At what point, though, do we say we have enough weapons? We have thousands of warheads. As of the mid-1990s, we had over 8000 nuclear warheads. The number may have come down a bit, but not that much.

Do we really need thousands and thousands of warheads to be a deterrent?

Furthermore, how do we tell Iran and North Korea they can't have nukes, when we have the biggest stockpile of any country in the world?

Agreed. If we already have thousands of nukes, why on earth should we make more? If Iran and North Korea want to make weapons of their own, we should just let them be. If they try to attack us, we have enough weapons to defend ourselves with.

Quite frankly, I think nuclear weapons are unnecessary. We really should partially disarm.

But that's not going to happen any time soon. :)

[marzipan]

Agreed. If we already have thousands of nukes, why on earth should we make more? If Iran and North Korea want to make weapons of their own, we should just let them be. If they try to attack us, we have enough weapons to defend ourselves with.

Quite frankly, I think nuclear weapons are unnecessary. We really should partially disarm.

But that's not going to happen any time soon. :)

i agree. the money could be put to better use, instead of making nukes.

[sakaitone]

because, we have to be #1... ever heard of the saying "what mother doesn't know won't hurt her."... what they don't know won't hurt them....
its not a moral issue

I think it's a moral issue, I agree with mipadi, why should it be okay for the U.S to have nukes?

Those weapons kill numerous people and plus the U.S. is spending more money on war when national debt is skyrocketing,this stupid war, a war triggered by the want of finding, "Weapons of mass destruction" when the U.S. is making those weapons.

If we make things as powerful as the atomic bomb we would wreck havoc upon the world. The Iran war is considered the 4th world war (Cold war being 3rd).

The bombing of the Japanese was horrible and even years after many people suffered because of the radiation (no clue how to spell that) that caused cancer.

We should focus on more important things like I dunno, Global Warming that could end the life on earth because of the hole in the ozone layer.

There are many things to consider because thinking about building some nukes to kill people, killing people is wrong, war is wrong, no matter which side anyone one is on lives are being destroyed because of war.

The U.S. shouldn't need to be number one, not if it means killing people. 'Course all of you are intitled to your opinions!

[*kryogenix*]

Agreed. If we already have thousands of nukes, why on earth should we make more? If Iran and North Korea want to make weapons of their own, we should just let them be. If they try to attack us, we have enough weapons to defend ourselves with.

So you're willing to let possibly millions die, just because we have enough to defend ourselves with?

That's the argument from the US side, but like I said before, that doesn't hold much sway in the world community. Clearly it's a bit one-sided to unilaterally say that one nation can have them, but others can't.

Do you agree that the fewer countries that have nukes, the better the international community is? The US has shown that it is pretty responsible with the use of nukes (other than the unfortunate attacks on H&N and a few tests that went awry). Would you sleep more soundly with Iran and North Korea using nukes?

The ideal solution is for all countries to get rid of their strategic nuclear arms, and we're on the way to doing that. Imagine what a nightmare it would be if all of East Asia had nukes.

If we make things as powerful as the atomic bomb we would wreck havoc upon the world. The Iran war is considered the 4th world war

We did that over 50 years ago...

[AngelinaTaylor]

I just feel so sorry for the world, and all those stupid, dumb, pathetic country leaders who decide to build them, because that's how the world's going to end - nuclear weapons and f**king hatred.. Is that what we need? I doubt it.. But people are too idiotic to understand it..

The damage's already been done. Let them build niclear weapons, let them f**king kill us..

Taylor``

[Crich323]

I say no. I mean, what's the point besides trying to prove that we're better.
Don't we already have enough nuclear bombs to destroy the planet?

[The Nocturnal Ph...]

Even if the U.S. were to make new nukes, they wouldn't say it. It would be top secret. Otherwise, it'll start an arms race, which is already currently going online secretively. >.> <.< >.> <.<

[sakaitone]

We did that over 50 years ago...

Does that matter? When the U.S. bombed Japan. Most people don't learn from thier mistakes and as they say history repeats itself. If we learned from the 1st war we had to not have war, do you think there would no war in history after that 1st war? If we had learned not to have war, would be discussing having nukes right now?

[*mipadi*]

Even if the U.S. were to make new nukes, they wouldn't say it. It would be top secret. Otherwise, it'll start an arms race, which is already currently going online secretively. >.> <.< >.> <.<

An arms race is the issue, but, as the article states, the US hasn't exactly made it a secret that they are considering the pursuit of new weapons.

[demolished]

doesnt matter if u nuke china, we have so many ppl we'll just bum rush u and friggin own the U.S. real hard

What the f**k? Is china really f**ked up? Are they seriously going to let people died no matter what?

Whoa, there are some moral issues.

Maybe, that’s why China is label one of top “smartest” countries because they have a pretty high amount of knowledge. They don’t care about moral educations or what?


Beside, is China a wealthy city? why is their enviroment so bad?