Slashdot Mirror
Labs Compete to Build New Nuclear Bomb
An anonymous reader writes "Yahoo! News is reporting that two labs are currently competing to design the first new nuclear bomb in twenty years. The new bomb was approved as a part of the 2006 defense spending bill. From the article: '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.'"
People need to read the article more closely. They aren't working on these new weapons to increase the US stockpile of nukes, but just to maintain it. They are trying to create safer and more stable nukes that can be kept for long periods of time without the problems we have with current nukes. Then they plan to replace, not add to, the current nuclear stockpile with these new weapons. I am not making a judgement here on whether nukes are good or bad at all, but if the only choice is between unsafe and unstable nuclear weapons and more stable ones I will take the stable ones anyday.
Java has no friends.
For example, one possible use for US nuclear weapons is a strike against hardened targets in North Korea. At the moment we don't really have appropriate bombs for that purpose. If North Korea started lobbing nuclear weapons, we'd want to take as many out on the ground as possible. The current arsenal is poorly suited for that purpose.
Also remember that the only way the US can credibly deter others from using nuclear weapons is to convince those others that the US is willing and able to strike back. Building new weapons is part of that plan.
For more on the aspect of prevention and counterforce, you could read The Wizards of Armageddon, which is about how such issues played out in the 50's - 80's. Building new nuclear weapons is business-as-usual rather than a radical departure.
No. They just don't want us to turn them into a bunch of Devout Christians -- or, worse yet, a bunch of dead Muslims.
The US has already forced a regime change in Iran in the early '60s -- It was fear of a repeat of that that led to the hostage taking in 1979. The US responded by trashing the political fortunes of every moderate (then) alive within Iran. Since then the US has been making noises about overthrowing their government (again).
Fears of the US trying again have intensified since Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, and started sabre-rattling at Iraq's neighbours.
It's a bit disappointing, but not a complete shock that Iran decided to push for a nuclear option. The US reneging on it's own non-proliferation responsibilities doesn't really help them (or any body else) feel safe about US intentions in the future.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
One should really blame poor translation and propagandists on that line.
Actually, the conclusion of Brommer, after looking at translation issues, is that he very much did say so, but that he didn't go as far as to declare war.