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.'"
Do as I say, not as I do. k.
Did we completely forget the point of the Moscow Treaty? We're trying to REDUCE the number of nukes, and get rid of them as much as possible. The last thing we need for peace is to bring attention to nukes again. When will it stop?
If the point of the new bomb is to reduce the current stockpile... then waiting 15 years and spending exactly zero dollars will accomplish the same goal, with the added benifit that it costs no money.
Oh wait, that's not the goal, they're just lieing through their teeth. I forgot.
-
The last serious redesign of the atomic bomb produced the fusion bomb, which gave off less radiation for the same bang. It seems reasonable that another redesign would try to produce more efficient fusion bombs, which is only a good thing.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
With terrorists being the nr 1 threat against the US as a nation, isnt it counterproductive to renew such a large stockpile of WMD's? What kind of nation poses a direct threat to the US with equal capacity in nuclear arms? Woudnt this country serve itself and the world community if it REDUCED its nuclear stockpile?
Even though I don't technically live in the US, I do live in one of its "colonies", namely, Australia. We are in the process of getting similar IP laws to the US, we show ~80% US tv shows on our free-to-air TV stations and we followed the states in not signing the Kyoto treaty as well as going into Iraq.
Here is what I *think* the US is trying to do:
1) Strengthen it's military power as well as the fear and respect it generates
2) Use this military power (as well as its expertise with finance) to obtain new resources as well as improve the result of bargaining situations
3) ???
4) Profit!
Developing new weapons, especially those designed to inflict maximum civilian damage, pretty much follows the US plan. I wonder if China will actually take the bait of going into an arms race with the US, given that it will be ahead economically in a decade or less.
Oh well, since Australia is both an ally to the US and China (uranium deal), I think we will be fine...
Berserk Manga > All
Shouldn't we focus on building cleaner, safer atomic power for civilian use? I'm shocked there was the potilical willpower to build more weapons when we can't build a CANDU electric plant or develop reprocessing or other waste reduction technology. But why fight global warming when you can start a second global arms race?
Tell that to the forefather of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Sanity is a majority vote.
Bottom line: much less plutonium lying around, smaller yields, cleaner designs, and reduced risk profile. They are not expanding the arsenal, just cleaning it up. Since the US is going to have nukes regardless, I do not have a problem with this.
Isn't the safest nuclear weapon the one you DON'T make?
An updated design that is cheaper to maintain sounds like a good idea to me. However, who's to know the scope of the research? I would be shocked if they didn't design some new tactical nukes as well. And frankly, tactical nukes scare me the most because we will actually consider their use (bunker busting and such).
Those 6000 bombs are leftovers from the coldwar and the arms buildup. It's expensive to dismantle them which is why it is taking time.
p.s. And before the knee jerkers decide to blame Bush for this, realize that these bombs were there under Carter and Clinton, and would still be here even if Gore and Kerry had won.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
The targets are North Korea and Iran. I elaborated on the former somewhat in this comment. The US is probably building somewhat smaller bombs that could be used as an emergency strike on short notice against hardened targets within those two countries. One danger of current US strategy is that its bombs are too big - does North Korea *really* believe the US will use megaton warheads against them? Maybe, maybe not. On the other hand, they should believe that the US will target their missiles with smaller weapons that will produce less collateral damage. That includes potential targets like the bunkers in which the senior leaders of North Korea hide.
That is somewhat true but it is a strawman argument. You could also easily say the safest gun is the one you don't make, but would that stop the bad guys from carrying guns. Instead of telling people they can't have guns because, "the safest gun is one you don't make" we do our best to include safety features in them.
I realize that nuclear weapons are a whole different class of weapons then any we have ever had before, but that doesn't change the fact that our current arsenal of weapons is actually deteriorating rapidly and possible prone to an attack that could detonate them. If we can replace those nukes with safer ones that don't have these problems then that is better what we currently have and while it may not be quite a step in the right direction, it isn't a step in the wrong direction either.
Java has no friends.
While the toys change, human nature hasn't. More permanent then a mountain, human idiocy endures.
If you need a comparison, check all the 1984 references then...it's even older but still apt.
Add to that that the US was the only nuclear armed nation that didn't have bomb manufacturing capacity in a good while. I think the previous factory was shut down due to contamination issues, and I think the LANL security fiasco hindered it as well.
I would prefer no nuclear weapons, but unfortunately, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle, I don't see any practical way out. A total global disarmament just doesn't seem likely, and is possibly hopelessly idealistic. I think history shows too many times that those without a strategic deterrence are the conquerred ones, and at times, they are are ones that get massacred.
Nuclear disarmament is like that scene in that Van Dam movie.. where they both have a gun pointed at the other's head. You'd have to be a fucking idiot to put your gun down first.
It's funny(strange) that the two things that propel innovation in their fields are weapons and pornography.
SNAFU
For example, Iraq.
And you missed out on some of the factual arguements presented.
The old bombs have a lifespan. That isn't doublespeak - it's FACT. New bombs will have to be built if we wish to keep them as a deterrant - and convincing politicians and generals that there is no need for such a deterrant is futile, so that's right out. The US no longer has bomb production capability, so the new bombs will need to be made in new factories. And they might as well update the elderly designs while they're at it, since there's no reason to build a new factory to build from bomb designes that are 20+ years old.
Nothing about this is illogical, or contrary to known facts.
The only way developing new bombs will lead to more bombs total if:
A) The new bombs are deployed before the old ones expire (unlikely)
Or
B) More new bombs are built than currently exist. This is expensive, and probably unecesarry, given that nukes aren't needed in massive numbers. A hundred might be enough of a deterrant.
What possible need do they have for doublespeak? The only possible point you might argue is that we shouldn't be building new bombs at all, and that we should give up the ones we have. Good luck convincing the rest of the world about that though.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
What if we were attacked by the country with the largest nuke arsenal? Couldn't we create massive devastation against that nation using conventional weapons? Wouldn't it make sense for us to lead the world into nuke disarmament, and thus have greater weight in forming coalitions against Iran and North Korea?
Also remember that the only way IRAN can credibly deter others from using nuclear weapons is to convince those others that IRAN is willing and able to strike back. Building new weapons is part of that plan.
200GB/2TB $7.95 Coupon: SAVE90DOLLAR
There is not only the choice between safe and non-safe nukes. There is also the choice of no nukes at all. Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually pledged that he would be happy to give up Iran's nuclear ambitions if there was a genuine commitment of all nations with nuclear weapons to disarm. Now, this is a dishonest offer, because he knows that it is not going to happen. But what better way to, literally and figuratively, disarm Iran than taking him up on it? What is the use of nuclear weapons in this world? Who are you going to nuke? "The terrorists"?
If you look at the comments in this thread, you will find that America has no moral leadership anymore whatsoever. It's gone. Note that this is an America-based forum. Don't even try to suggest any kind of moral leadership of the United States in a European context. You will quickly hear: Iraq civil war. Abu Ghraib. Secret CIA prisons. Guantanomo. Police state. Religious fanaticism. Violation of international treaties. And so on, and so forth. What's the last moral defense against an undeniably terrible regime like Iran or the PRC? Democracy? Bullshit. Hardly anybody outside the US takes this so-called democracy seriously anymore. We are talking about an electoral system which tolerates the candidate in an election running the election, legally. Third world countries have more refined democratic systems than the US.
It's time to stop using false dichotomies and poorly constructed slippery slope arguments. "We can have safe nuclear bombs, or unsafe ones!" "We can invade countries, or let terrorists kill us!" "If we let the evil homosexuals marry, goats and chickens will be next!" "We must scare teenagers so they won't have sex and get pregnant!" "We must lock up 2 million people so there won't be criminals in the streets!" What scares me the most is that there are a lot of people who actually believe that.
High oil prices are good for wealthy American businessmen who are heavily invested in oil or its allied industries, but high oil prices are only good for the US (in any more general sense) to the degree they discourage oil consumption in the long term.
Interestingly, the people who would benefit from high oil prices are many of the same people who support (or make up) the current American administration. If the current administration weren't so utterly damned incompetent, it wouldn't be hard to argue that it chose to invade Iraq precisely to drive up oil prices. (Historically any tension or upheaval in the Middle East has driven up oil prices.) It should have been clear ahead of time that this wouldn't be a surprising outcome.
Granted, there are additional global economic effects that are also impacting the price of oil: increasing demand from emerging markets; limited supplies; and local production/delivery disruptions unrelated to the idiotic invasion of Iraq. Still, unrest in the Middle East will do more than its fair share keeping prices high.
>We cry out against the beheading that happened to Berg and
>others, and yet, it may very well be minor compared to what we
>are doing in gitmo
What, pray tell, COULD we be doing to people that would make sawing off a man's head with a knife "minor"?!
Are you fucking KIDDING me?
I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and say there's no way you've actually seen the Berg video. Look it up, then come back here and tell me that a guard wiping his ass with the Koran is staggeringly brutal and horrible compared to that.
For fuck's sake.
-l
1. Breakdown of Iran's Religions:
Shi'a Muslim 89%, Sunni Muslim 9%, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i 2%
2. Breakdown of USA's Religions:
Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)
3. I would hardly say that the replacment of Iraq's then-current government and military could be considered wiping the country off the map. In contrast, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's made statements that Israel is a stain in the Islamic world and should be wiped off the map. Mahmoud was also a known torturer during his days with the OSU. The last time I checked, the most torturous thing Bush did was share his bad grammar with the world.
I can't believe this was modded insightful.
d ing.htm for the numbers in 2004. US spending has only increased since then.)
Sure, the states need a military to defend itself from 'rival nations marching in'. However, does the US expect half the world to come marching in? Because last I checked, the US military budget is half of the annual spendings on defense worldwide. Yes, that's right folks, the US spends half of all the money spent on defense. Also, 80% of the increase in military spending was due to the US last year. ( see for instance http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spen
I hate to break the news to you, but the US does not have a defensive army. You have a mostly offensive army which is basically strong enough to take on the rest of the world.
"Remember, there are no world police."
Yes there is. It's the states. Although police implies a force controlled by some agreed upon laws, and without it's own interests. This is not the case. The police here is governend by _your_ laws, and guided by _your_ interests, with a guiding principle of fear, feeded by _your_ government because some fscking Saudi Arab made up some so-called global terrorist group which is _absolutely_ no threat to the imperialist empire the states have become.
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
Also remember that the only way RUSSIA can credibly deter others from using nuclear weapons is to convince those others that RUSSIA is willing and able to strike back. Building new weapons is part of that plan.
... for you US taxpayers that your taxmoney is being used on initiatives started by the influence of weapon industry lobbyists instead of being used for your own good.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the US is required to ~"pursue plans to reduce and liquidate their stockpiles"
Now I know this is not likely to happen, but it does gall me to see the US (And the UK for that matter) ignoring their treaty obligations, and then getting righteous over how Iran may be failing it's Non-Proliferation duties.
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
The US still has nukes because the US is likely to need them in the future as a deterrent. Europe has NOT picked up the mantel of world leadership that the US held since after World War II. It was the US has badgered Europe into going into Korea and Serbia. The US is the titan the plops down on occasion trying to fix the worlds wrongs. Now, I am not going to argue that every time the US juggernaut stomps its foot it is doing right. I am arguing that no one else has bothered to do so. There IS a need in this world for a nation or group of nations that is willing to show up around the world with guns to stop unprovoked assaults, such as in Korea, or genocides, such as in Serbia.
Answer me this. If China was to launch an assault on Taiwan tomorrow, would Europe run to the defense of a fellow democracy? Of course not. The only friend Taiwan could expect to come to its aid would be the big evil US. The US would park a battle fleet off the coat of Taiwan, drop a few thousand marines on the shore, and start sinking anything that tried to cross the channel despite the fact that it would be rumbling with the most populace nation in the world off of its own coast.
Europe has merrily thrown the defense of democracies to the wind and has actually tried to sell China weapons for which it could use to attack Taiwan despite pleading from the US not to. Europe has not entered into any sort of defense pact to defend Taiwan as the US has. Europe has put their economic prosperity and safety above defending fellow democracies.
When Europe can unite and show a willingness to strap on their boots and go kick some ass for democracy, I would be more then happy to see the US put down its arms and call it a centaury. I don't see that happening. The only time Europe comes out guns blazing is when it has to do with one of their former colonies or the US is leading the charge and carrying over half of the load. As long as the US is the only nation swinging its weight, you can expect the US to have a hefty supply of nukes to keep the people it pisses off at bay.
Personally, I think that the South Park guys sum up the argument for the good that the US provides to the world pretty eloquently in Team America, World's Police.
We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!
You make one fatal assumption in your line of reasoning, which is that fusion and fission bombs compared to antimatter bombs are all equal in all other regards except energy density. However that is not true, because a higher energy density means you can make a much smaller weapon, thus allowing you to have a much more conveniently sized warhead. So even if you have to pour every drop of energy into them in the first place, this might be well worth it for the extra convenience in packaging size.
It's an oversimplification, but it's also true in every clause.
Ok - I'll play.
So by "Nation A", you would mean America, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, probably Israel, and possibly North Korea.
And by "Nation B", you would mean Saudi Arabia, Norway, Iran, Venuzuela, UAE, Kuwait, Nigeria, Mexico.
Russia doesn't fit into either (it's a large oil exporter and has nukes).
I think you might have oversimplified this to a point where it loses all validity.
So is the USA.
When was the last time a US citizen was put to death for practicing the wrong religion? Your tendency toward relativism and moral equivalence have clouded your judgement.
They just threatened. The USA actually attacked Iraq.
Do you believe the US is not trying to rebuild Iraq and institute stable, lawful government in Iraq? Do you contend that the US is systematically plundering that country? Ahmadinejad's comments are pure malice, the fantasy of a homicidal madman who wants to kill Jews because they are Jews. If I were a Jew I would take the threat deadly seriously. Why Persian's are so obscessed by an Arab/Jewish conflict is hard to say. My guess is it distracts from the utter failure and depravity of Iran's mullahcracy.
an ill wind that blows no good
Glad to see it. Besides the obvious welfare-for-smart-people angle, it will bolster the credibility of American deterrence. There's still China out there, and they might think they could win a nuclear war over Taiwan someday. Not to mention a Russia that could become resurgent and continue down the path of despotism.
The genie cannot be confined back in its bottle, therefore if there's going to be nukes, America should have the most and the best.
Wasn't the whole point of the non-proliferation treaty for non-nuclear states to remain that way, and in exchange the nuclear states would dispose of their nuclear arsenals over time?
The policy of developing new nukular weapons seems an outright betrayal of that treaty. If one signatory openly disregards the treaty, how can we in good conscience criticize another nation for threatening to withdraw from the treaty.
I'm just saying...
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
It's called "neo-liberal hysteria". The usual gambit is to say that the West is morally equivalent to the Middle East. This is followed by wringing of hands and shedding of tears.
Nice straw man. The US isn't worried about the use ofIranian atomic bombs, but about unprovoked (terrorist) use, in a holy war, against an idealogical enemy, who poses no real threat. Civilian targets or not, doesn't make that big of a difference. Use of atomic bombs during a war with an approximately equally matched enemy doesn't make much of a difference. Just look at India and Pakistan's bomb programs, where the US did not threaten to invade. Of course, this is nothing like Japan.
Back in the 40s, there wasn't pin-point accuracy bombing. War was all about carpet-bombing your enemies industries, population, etc. The only alternative was to sit around and do nothing as your enemy bombed your country instead.
People look at the first atomic bombs in terms of the modern day, but that's just not the way it was. Looking at the evidence, even in hindsight, it was the least-terrible option.
In fact, even today, when faced with the option of droping atomic bombs on a waring country, or losing millions of American lives, droping the bomb would still be the better option, and nobody would argue, until 50 years later, when some idiot will post some brainless comment on the web about it.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
No, but it will most likely mean they will be replaced by politicians who are touchy feely and believe we shouldnt' do anything to stand up to militant Islam. Well, unless you think lobbing cruise missles into baby food factories is something.
I take it you consider kicking over a country and turning into a hotbed of terrorism over aluminum rocket tubes, a forged purchase letter "signed" by a dead man, and mobile weather balloon stations to be doing something more substantial, then?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The rational objections to U.S. policy with regard to Iran are not bourn from a desire to see a 'fair' distribution of nuclear weapons. The rational objection to U.S. policy with regard to Iran is that ALL the social awareness sculpting through the media and the actions of the government are designed to start another war in the Middle East. Period. ANY semi-logical sounding argument for doing so will be employed to trick the public into going along with this desire. It is easy to come up with good sounding arguments for even the dumbest ideas.
War is profitable. Chaos is profitable. That is the bottom line. (Well, that and speeding along the Christian cultic agenda toward the apocalypse. But that's another story). --Priming the U.S. population for war with Iran has nothing to do with any of the reasons you suggest. Bush and his people are not interested in any philosophy which does not seek to maintain imbalance, chaos and a steady flow of public funds into their pockets through third party companies, (oil, defense, etc.).
They fooled the world once with WMD's in Iraq. They're doing it again with this nonsense about uranium plants in Iran. It's all propaganda and social programming.
-FL
Are you sure?
USA: "We're going to invade Iran, kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity."
Iran: "Try it and lose New York."
USA: "Do that and we'll destroy you completely."
Iran: "You're going to kill us anyway. What have we got to lose?"
USA: "Er... fuck."
Iran's hypothetical nuclear capability, even if nowhere near capable of destroying the US entirely, is still enough to raise the costs of invading Iran to an unacceptable level. If the costs of invading Iran are 'billions of dollars, and a lot of Iranians getting killed' then Bush will probably do it. If the costs of invading Iran are 'billions of dollars, and nearly all the Iranians getting killed, and a big radioactive crater where Manhattan used to be' then Bush will probably think twice...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
To state that about what I specifically complained about is unattainable is cynical defeatism.
- Is not torturing prisoners unattainable?
- Is following the 6th Amendment and not having indefinite detentions unattainable?
- Is not privatizing an occupation (or at the very least keeping discipline in the security contractors) unattainable?
- Is keeping soldier discipline and morale high enough to avoid civillian massacres unattainable?
History shows we can do better than this. I don't believe that these goals are so hard to accomplish, and I think the betrayal of the Constitution that the first two represent is far closer to treason than demanding our government do better.Not only that but you're publicaly mocking them, thereby making them looks worse in the eyes of other citizens, your allies, and your enemies.
What would you have us do? Praise torture and the infliction of such despair as to cause repeated suicide attempts? Praise prison camps held outside the US specifically to skirt our Constitutional protections? Praise the use of unaccountable mercenaries to handle security? Or shoud I just close my eyes and pretend that we are the same as we were before and that these acts do not sully America. These things happened. Now we have to actually deal with them, and we can't do that with people attacking everybody with a sense of decency for not mutely saluting the flag and giving our blind faith to it.
As Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing," and that is exactly what you are asking of us with such a cynical comment.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").