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.'"
Yeeehaw!
nothing.can.stop.me.now
If there were a greater investment in grammar checking programs, the article's headline would be readable.
My other sig is extremely clever...
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.
Hey, you're not supporting the troops. It's ok for the US to do it, because the US would never use a weapon of mass destruction like a nuke against a civilian population.
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.
The design is so advanced it suspends causality.
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.
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.
Finally, the stability of the US government is much greater [fundforpeace.org] than that of Iran.,/p>
Interesting list, I notice all the states in the green (best) section of the list do NOT have nuclear weapons.
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes should fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." - Zapp Brannigan
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
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.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
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!
Yeah, getting little things like "facts" wrong tends to be a common theme amongst those who take pleasure in blaming the US for everything.
Incorrectly stating a date is not "facts", it's details. When it happened is not relevant to this debate. But I'm not defending someone elses post, nor should it be valid critism of the central point here.
The UK came up with the plan and pursued it, the US agreed to assist. So why, pray tell, is the US the country being blamed?
Who said the UK wasn't to blame? It was the UKs idea but "agreed to assist" grossly downplays the USA's involvement. The CIA did most of the work, managed by Americans.
Ofcourse, the revisionist historians who see this as some blatant power-grab, or the removal of a "democratic" regime for political purposes, all fail to acknowledge the realities of that time period.
How much hypocracy can you get in one sentance? You refer to the time period (start of the cold war); how could this be anything other than a "power grab"? It's a power grab if the soviets take the country and it's exactly the same when you do it. The entire cold war was one big power grab; the later invention of the ICBM changed all that of course. Back then, power was territory. Turkey, Afganistan, Cuba, they all had conflicts due to these cold war power grabs. They also had short-range missles stationed on them, pointing at the enemy. But hey, the US had the Iranian peoples best interest in mind all along, right?
Back then Global Communism under a totalitarian USSR was much more threatening and terrifying than the prospect of a Global Islamist Caliphate is today.
Bull. This is before the legacy of Stalin. Prior to that asshat, there was no reason to fear Communism. The fact that you capitalise "Global Communism" suggests that you disagree with me on this for ideological reasons. If Stalin wanted to promote Communism, he'd have been better off never being born!
By the way, there is no threat of a "Global Islamist Caliphate". Never was. All we have here is a bunch of people screaming "get out of my country" then after 40 years of that some fly some planes into some buildings. They have no desire to take over the world. They don't want the whole world to be islamic (well, a couple do, but we have our own Christian equivalents in Fallwell etc). Their goals are clear and stated every other month. Get out of the middle east. Stop dicking around with their goverments. Stop supporting repressive brutal dictatorships. Never once have I seen Al Qaida say "global islam" or anything along those lines.
A revolution in an Iran increasingly leaning towards communism (and sharing a border with the USSR) was a logical way to avoid more intense warfare later on. And, as history shows, NATO nations won the Cold War without having to fight much.
Complete conjecture. Would Iran being communist be any worse than the current state of affairs? Without a time machine we cannot answer that. I'd argue that the cold war turning into real war was always unlikely, due to the M.A.D. brought about by the nukes. The 1953 revolution in Iran is largely responsible for the anti-US feeling over there. It could be argued that the majority of terror has roots in this event.
As for the rest of your nonsense, the time for diplomacy in Iraq came and passed in the 1990's. Sadam survived one war, years of inspections and negotiations, followed by years of sanctions. Negotiating any more at that point was sheer lunacy.
No, thinking that invading was an improvement was lunacy. I'll argree that the situation was pretty dire over there with Saddam in charge. But I'd like to see anyone make a convincing argument that the current situation is better. Or that it will be better in five years. You do realise that we are now there forever? We have built 15 or so permament bases. Most of the US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia (long term deterent stationing) have been moved to Iraq. And the his
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.