Discussion in 'Serious' started by Cthippo, 8 Jan 2007.
Meh, we're doing it too to be honest Cthippo. Nukes need to be kept reasonably up to date to be safe. It's not adding to the arsenal so it doesn't signify a step up, and it's not augmenting the arsenal so that it can be more easily used(politically and militarily speaking) - it's simply keeping what they've got up to date.
If nukes are going to be around, wouldn't we all rather they're safe sitting around?
And where is the world now to judge (or even boycot) the US?
Yes, thats what we need, more nukes. Not a healthcare system or anything. Nope.
What total *******s we have running this place.
While I agree money is better spent, you cant argue having safer warheads is a bad thing . No doubt it would come mainly from the military budget anyway, which is already far larger than any others iirc.
Of course it might be nice if they didn't have them at all, and it /is/ hypocritical to sanction other countries not to have them then make more yourself - the argument being one country might use it for offence and one for defence. Of course in the end its being used, which is bad enough, whether in offence OR defence.
so, since we are only updating our current nukes, does this mean we will be dismantling the old ones as we go? is that figured into the budget as well?
If this is a safety issue..are they telling us that the nuclear arsenal of the US is un-safe? When will China and Russia etc upgrade their nuclear weapons for "safety" reasons.
"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know."
When it becomes neccesary in Chinas case. In Russias case, who knows. That doesn't mean the US or UK shouldn't do it. The nuclear arsenals are not currently unsafe, but they will become so if not replaced with newer technology.
How about we test the new bomb. Make sure it works and then put the rest of them in orbit. Say all 3k+ over the middle east. Put a big bright light on it and all the the Star of Bethlehem. Folks there are more nuclear weapons on this earth than there needs to be. But as long as we keep puting our noses in other people business instead of simply "talking solftly and carring a big stick" we will need to keep upgrading the reliability of our weapons. I say keep it simple, you can burn our flag, you can shoot up your cities, you can chant I hate america all day......but the first american citizen you kill, the first terrorist act you perform, I say we use this intelligence agency we pay for to find your sorry butts and then give the country you live in 5 business days to hand you over or we nuke your butts where your hiding. Want to stop terrorism? Make the country that terrorist live and opperate out of a glass parking lot. Then you will see how the world looks at terrorism. Harsh? No. when you dance with the devil your gonna get burned. So set off the dance floor and break out the hose and open the nozzle on em.
The good news is that this is a non-starter. Not even Bush can get 100 Billion out of congress to build not only a new weapon, but an entire infrastructure to build that weapon. You have to understand, the US no longer has the industrial infrastructure to build nuclear weapons. That infrastructure has been torn down and is slowly being cleaned up which is costing the taxpayer billions and billions and billions of dollars.
To build new nuclear weapons would require completly rebuilding this infrastructure, and would bring down the wrath of the enviromental groups who fought for so long to see the old ones cleaned up. Without a crediable threat and the cold war era secracy and general ignorance of the population as to the hazards of radiation, it cannot be done.
Best laugh I had today...
If I follow your way of thinking... How many Iraq, Afghan, Russian, Vietnam, Korean,... (the list goes on) citizens may nuke your country?
But, if your country would stop doing the underlined stuff, the world would be a much better and safer place... And I could take a soda of my choise on an airplane... I might sound harsh, but the USA can't be targetted enough. While 9/11 was a drama for a lot of families, the US as a country had it coming...
I have recently read that U.S. has nuclear warheads enough to destroy the world 10 times over!
So what if some of the nuclear warheads are ageing? Just dismantle and get rid of them, and be left with enough to destroy the world 6 times over!
Perhaps someone (or someone's close friends/relatives) in the hierarchy, stand to earn millions out of such upgrading programs...
They're all aging, that's the problem. You can look for corruption if you like, but the simple fact is that their entire weapons program is growing old, won't be maintainable for that much longer, and needs replacing.
Jeez, sometimes I think that logical thought goes out the window just because the US is in the title.
No, it goes out the window because US imposes consequences when someone else is updating (or building for the same matter) their weapons arsenal...
Why US and not Iran? Or China, Russia,...
Money Spent On Nuclear Weapons Up To 1998: About 5.5 Trillion
US National Debt In 1998: About 5.5 Trillion
I can't remember who showed me that, but if you kick over a few rocks, you can find the information to back it up.
Looks like the statistic will continue to live up to its name.
By that reasoning, the UK should have nuked your home country for subsidising the IRA ("buy a bullet for the boys", remember?). Iran should have nuked you for subsidising the Shah. Iraq, Guatemala, Brazil, Chile, Guyana, Indonesia and Congo, they all could give you some payback.
Dance with the devil? Why don't you stop whistling his tune.
Logical thought may go out of the window, but learned and educated thought stays forever! Please read below to see why you are wrong in your reasons:
Plutonium Lifespan in U.S. Weapons Much Longer Than Thought
Please read the rest of the report with more details on:
...and so do foot-in-mouth comments.
Learned and educated minds will now contemplate that the is a lot more to a nuclear warhead than just its plutonium payload. There is its containment shell, for instance, and detonation mechanism. There is the delivery system and infrastructure: propulsion units, launch systems, guidance electronics, all of which have to work flawlessly when activated. The former Soviet Union has been finding out just how expensive it is to keep all that stuff in shape. The joke used to be that if they ever did press that red button, chances were that it wouldn't work.
It's illegal to put any weapon in space or on orbiting planets.
Separate names with a comma.