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.'"
Eh, Iran was told all they need to be when the US invaded Iraq.
It's simple - if you have the bomb, you're safe. If you don't have it, you'll be invaded. Given that the US seems fully ready to use military force in the middle east, what possible reason would Iran have for NOT building nukes? Nukes make a wonderful deterrant after all.
I'm not saying I agree with them, but they're certainly being logical. Given a choice between, say, a non-agression pact and a stockpile of nuclear weapons that can make the other guy think twice about declaring war, I'd take the nukes. Assurances that you won't be invaded are just words on paper after all.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
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?
If they retire their old weapons and build new ones, isn't that reducing their armaments? If I get rid of a dozen old guns and buy a single new rifle, am I not reducing the number of weapons I have?
I can see why people would want them to get rid of all nukes, and not just some, but you'd never convince a military-minded government to do that. It's probably better that they keep a smaller, less destructive arsenal purely as a deterant.
And I don't see why this article would neccesarily mean more nuclear weapons yet. If the labs develop better bombs, and those bombs are built while the old ones are taken out of storage and dismantled, that at least accomplishes something (since old bombs lying around in storage are probably more of a safety hazard than new ones). Plus, there is no guarantee that the next administration will be as military focused as the current one, so even if they do build a better moustrap, it may not be deployed.
As long as the total number of nukes is decreasing, there is progess.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
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.
For another, the US maintains its stockpiles of nuclear weapons solely to serve as a deterrent against other nations, while Iran's leadership has publicly and repeatedly declared that Israel should not exist as a state and has funded terrorist acts in order to remove it - it may very well use nuclear weapons in a first-strike effort against Israel, and even the threat of this occurring destabilizes the Middle East further than it already is.
I think that you are exaggerating the differences. Another view is that Isreal and Iran are locked in a regional power struggle. Isreal has a very capable nuclear capability (uses submarines) so a first strike against Isreal is impractical. Isreal would love to see Iran gone as would the US. Their constituency is a little more sophisticated and hence their rhetoric is more refined. But the underlying message is the same.
Also, for months there has been talk in the US of "bunker busting" nukes to be used against Iran's facilities, and knowing this the administration states that "All options" are on the table. So do not think that the stockpiles are simply a "benign" deterrent against attack on the US. This was clearly a provocation. Like the "we'll play poker with you if you show us your cards" deal Ms. Rice offered reciently. Personally, I think that this is meant to isolate Iran and solidify European/US resolve for war down the road.
Iran is a lothesome regime, but the US and Isreal are not the exactly benign innocent lamb-kittens.
Cheers,
-b
If you approached the situation from a non-American point of view, most of the issues you raise with Iran could be applied to the US equally, and with more historical evidence rather than mere conjecture.
The most significant real issue is stability, but we've already had the collapse of the Soviet Union, which had more nuclear weapons than Iran could build in two centuries. So the horse is several leagues from that particular barn, though I agree it's in the world's best interests to keep as few nuclear horses from running around as possible.
But at the end of the day, Iran would be crazy NOT to develop nuclear weapons, assuming they look after their own best interests. An American policy that doesn't recognize this and try to overcome it is doomed to failure -- we need a HUGE carrot or a gigantic stick to stop them, and we don't seem willing to do the former or capable (for several more years) of the latter.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
It's funny(strange) that the two things that propel innovation in their fields are weapons and pornography.
SNAFU
Dunno if you were replying to the wrong person, or misinterpreted what I said, but reread my post.
There is no question that the US is stable (as is China, and the USSR back in the day). Nor is there any question that Iran is a dangerous theocracy. Under no circumstances am I defending Iran, or attacking the US.
However, the US has already acted with military force in the middle east, on the pretext of preventing a dictator from aquiring weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, America considers Iran to be its enemy, both geopolitically and ideologically.
Given those two facts, why would Iran give up its nuclear program? Even if the country was run by secular moderates, they'd have no logical reason to get rid of their nukes, and every reason to want to keep them as insurance. The fact that the people in power there are neither logical nor moderate just makes it even harder to convince them. Even a treaty assuring the Iranians that they will not be invaded is not enough - treaties are just words on paper, whereas nukes are a tangible and frightingly effective deterrant.
Like I said, I'm not defending them, only their logic.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
No thanks, I'll take "Amerikkkan Fachism" over the benevolence of Iran any day.
It's not an either/or proposition -- voting out the Amerikkkan fascists in November* doesn't mean that they'll be replaced by a bunch of Iranian mullahs.
* Difficult to do, I admit, when the Democrats respond exactly the same as the Republicans 98% of the time.
For example, Iraq.
1. Iran is full of religious zelots.
So is the USA.
2. Mamood Ahmadi-Najad (president of Iran) denies the holocust happend and threatend Israel to be "wiped off the map"
They just threatened. The USA actually attacked Iraq.
The US has wanted to remove Iran's government ever since it came to power. Relationships have historically been bad, originally because the US supported the previous dictator, the Shah of Persia, over the popular and democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh. Iraq was not threatening to build WMDs, but this did not stop Bush.
I think I heard that the Bush administration planned devising a smaller nuclear bomb that could be used in the battlefield or for bunker busting. It is obvious, since there is no longer a nuclear-capable adversary (except North Korea, which is left alone just because of that).
Israel usually denies, but everybody knows they have extensive nuclear capability and that they can deliver it to Iran if they wanted. Attacking a nuclear power far stronger than you are, which is tightly allied to the major nuclear power on the planet with whom you don't have a good relationship to begin with is such a stupid thing not ever Ahmadinejad can possibly contemplate that. On the other hand, nukes have caused the longest period of peace in Europe in centuries, the cold war. If anything, nukes have a stabilising effect as they effectively make it impossible to wage a war in which a side gains something.
No doubt about that, but an invasion did not help in Iraq. People were killed before, now they are still killed—only now it's more like random violence. In addition, the country became a gigantic terrorist training ground, so if peace were to come to Iraq we would have a few thousands terrorists on the loose. Want to do it over in Iran?
Sure. But the same can be said about North Korea and especially Pakistan, home to most Talibans. Pakistan is also a dictatorship, but an "aligned" one. In your source about state instability, Iran is 53rd, Pakistan is 9th. If you have to be seriously worried about terrorists getting nukes, that's the most likely place to look at.
If it costs less I find it more likely that the government will keep funding constant and just have more warheads. The weapon industry will surely lobby not to cut into their profits, and they have influence. "You don't want to give the terrorists a sign of weakness by reducing our military expenditure, do you?"
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
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
When the US stops making the world a worse place to live in for all non-US citizens, we'll stop criticizing your politics.
And tell me, how exactly would you know what other countries' citizens are focused on ? I assume you visited each and every one of those countries ? Or at least have access to their mainstream media ? You do speak other languages, right ?
What the US should be focused on internally is educating its people. Stop this celebration of stupidity. You don't need a president you would like to have a beer with, you need a president who can run the @#!? country !
Teach people that issues are almost never black and white.
Teach them that being criticial on human rights abuses by the US does NOT mean you can't also be critical on human rights abuses by other countries.
But hey, making "France surrenders" jokes is much more fun, right ?
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.
If you honestly believe that there is an army of Muslims in the Arab world sitting in a dark room mutting "I hate those Americans, they're so damn.... FREE! I'll kill them for being so free!" then you need to take a good hard look inside your head and clear out the thoughts that have been proscribed for you by the media.
The Arab world (and indeed most of the third world including Africa, Indochina and South America) hate the Western powers not because they are democratic, but because they are exploitative fascists. The west is always pulling stunts like this which is why there are so many "terrorists" out there trying to bring the west down. The moment the US stops trying to act like a global dictator the sooner crazy lunatics will stop flying planes into US buildings.
Get a grip. And get rid of that huge gas guzzling 4x4 you use to haul your collection of shotguns around in.
I hate printers.
This behaviour is certainly not exclusive to Americans, it's just that's it's so incredibly obvious in their case.
I think it is not so much that it is more obvious, particularly (I can't think of the last time any nation didn't act in a manner that didn't stink to high heaven of unenlightened self-interest, nor can I think of any people or nation who hasn't had similar lapses of taste or sense as Redneck [tm] Americans). I think rather it is problematic because it matters more. Simply, when the next-door neighbor is a jackass, it isn't that big a deal...unless he's got fistfuls of dollars and 'guns, lots of guns'. Similarly, if Liechtenstein were as assholey as the US, nobody would particularly care.
This, incidentally, is why it is perfectly reasonable for people who are not Americans (disclaimer, I am an American) to take a great interest in, and criticize, US policy: it affects their lives, sometimes in ways more profound than the actions of their own governments (Think, in particular, Columbia, though there are other obvious examples). I do not think it appropriate to deny the legitimacy of the complaints of people who are aggreived by the actions of a neighbor.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
He got the date wrong. Look it up if you want. Operation Ajax, 1953. It's not exactly a secret or anything, however they don't teach it in school and I don't think the movie is out yet. This is one of the cornerstones of why some islamists have issues with the USA.
And it wasn't a popular revolution. Popular revolutions by definition do not involve outside funding and state-sponsored terrorist campaigns.
The overthrowing of a democratically elected government in 1953 Iran was the first of MANY such operations. The US has overthrown more democracies that it has "created". It's all about the magical word..."socialist". Elect one of them and you are Fuxored.
Threatening to build nuclear weapons in 5 years isn't a normal reaction from those who are afraid of an imminent threat.
Iran is making no such threat. We are the ones talking of them building nukes in five years, not them.
So it looks like another war might be neccesary after all. You figured they'd have learned from Iraq's example, but common sense seems to be in short supply in the middle east.
another? Which previous war was also "neccesary". This I can't wait to hear...
Common sense? You clearly haven't been following the news. Numerous leaked memos and whistle-blowers have come forward to prove that the Iraq invasion was going to proceed regardless of any diplomacy. Any "diplomacy" you saw was to placate YOU and the international community. The PNAC have been planing that one since 1997. These plans involve using Iraq as a gateway to the middle east. Irans recent nuclear sabre-rattling has nothing to do with the fact that the PNAC has their sights on them. They've had their crosshairs aimed for several years, they are just looking for a justification to do it now.
Often I wonder how great nations allow bad things to happen. How populations can turn a blind eye to what is going on in their name. Your ignorance has helped me understand this problem greatly. Thank you, thank you very much.
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!
But there is, so far, no evidence that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. And nobody, not even Iran, is arguing that Iran having nuclear weapons would be a good thing. The point of contention relates to nuclear power plants. Under 1968's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, nations have the right to develop nuclear power, including enriching their own uranium.
What we (that is, the U.S., Germany, and a few other nations) are trying to block is Iran's uranium enrichment program, instead insisting that they purchase enriched uranium from us.
Iran, however, does not want to be dependent on foreign nations for their energy needs, as they are familiar with where that sort of thing leads.
They have in the past said they'd allow inspectors from the IAEA, but that giving up their enrichment program altogether was non-negotiable.
We have refused to negotiate on allowing enrichment, even overseen by IAEA inspectors. So, because of our complete unwillingness to negotiate, they now have an on-going, and uninspected, uranium enrichment program going on.
And, if they've learned anything from the lessons of Iraq and North Korea, they will now be doing all they can to develop nuclear weapons, knowing that we won't invade if they have them, but we almost certainly will if they don't.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
False dichotomy.
.... 20) Iraq, and would have acted accordingly instead of nursing some adolescent kick-Saddam's-ass fantasy.
The alternative to ignorant and misguided use of military force is informed and wise usage of military force.
The main cause of the current disaster in Iraq is that the invasion and post-invasion rebuilding were planned and executed under the direction of folks who were actively misinformed and ignorant of basic facts of the Middle East and Iraq. For instance, "crusade" is the absolute worst word to use to describe a policy in the Mideast, but GWB used it. Turkish involvement in Iraq would bring back memories of the Ottoman Empire, but some idiots thought that all Muslims are alike, so involving Turkey would smooth things over; anybody who could count the population of Iraq figured it would take about 300,000 troops, but Shinseki was shitcanned and we went in with half that number; Iraq had nothing to do with (and Saddam Hussein was absolutely opposed to the agenda of) Islamic fundamentalism and Al Qaeda, but the Bush administration seems to actually believe it's political rhetoric tying those together; Iraq was a barely cohesive entity made up of three distinct ethnic/religious groups with no history of peacful and democratic co-existence, but the administration believed it could be magically turned into a multi-party multi-ethnic democracy overnight.
Somebody who knew anything about Iraq, for example, the British experience there in the 1920's and 1930's, would have agreed with GHWB's decision that toppling Saddam Hussein would cause mass disruption and create a fertile environment for lots of stuff bad for America to happen. In fact, they might have recognized that the main threats to America on Sept 12th 2001 were something like 1) Al Qaeda based in Afghanistan 2) North Korea 3) Pakistan 4) Iran
Can we suggest replacing fucking idiotic incompetent faith-based morons with capable, intelligent, fact-based experts without being labeled as wimps?
And, by the way, the primary reason Bill Clinton didn't get Osama bin Laden with cruise missiles is because our "ally in the war on terror" Pakistan tipped him off.