Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

US scientists designing new generation of nukes


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1    Paulo

Paulo

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 112 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2003
  • Location:the Beautiful Philippines Island

Posted 07 February 2005 - 10:26 PM

US scientists designing new generation of nuclear arms

NEW YORK (AFP) - US scientists are quietly starting work on a new generation of nuclear arms meant to be more rugged and reliable than warheads in the existing arsenal.


About nine million dollars have been allocated so far for weapons designers at the three US nuclear weapons laboratories, the New York Times reported Monday, citing government officials and experts.


The initiative is expected to grow and could produce finished designs in five to 10 years. Congress and a future administration would then have to approve the development of prototype warheads.


Critics say the project could trigger a new arms race and topple bans on testing, while proponents say it could ultimately reduce the US nuclear arsenal, yet make it more robust.


US weapons builders have spent decades trimming the dimensions of originally massive bombs to make them easier to transport and more accurate, using the latest technologies and innovative methods.


But now they want to emphasize reliability and long shelf life, and design weapons that are easy to manufacture.


The current arsenal of about 10,000 warheads is aging and the United States can no longer be certain of the reliability of the bombs due to international bans on testing.


"Our labs have been thinking about this problem off and on for 20 years," said John Harvey, director of policy planning at the National Nuclear Security Administration.


"The goal is to see if we can make smarter, cheaper and more easily manufactured designs that we can readily certify as safe and reliable for the indefinite future -- and do so without nuclear testing."


The creation of more reliable warheads could lead to a sharp reduction in the overall number of arms in the US nuclear arsenal, according to a US lawmaker.


"A more robust replacement warhead, from a reliability standpoint, will provide a hedge that is currently provided by retaining thousands of unnecessary warheads," David Hobson, chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, said last week.


An arms control advocate said the program could spark a new arms race, revive underground testing and possibly make use of nuclear weapons in war more tempting.


"The existing stockpile is safe and reliable by all standards," Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association, told the Times. "So to design a new warhead that is even more robust is a redundant activity that could be a pretext for designing a weapon that has a new military mission."



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ar_050207154839

Much Love, Light & Peace,

Paulo`


-------------------------------------------------------------------
KindNess in words creates Confidence,
KinDNesS in  ThinKing creates ProfounDNesS,
KinDNesS in GiVing creates LoVe.
                                  -Lao Tzu


Posted Image

#2    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,903 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 08 February 2005 - 12:55 AM

so?

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#3    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

  • Member
  • 14,465 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Milky Way Galaxy 3rd planet

  • They're wearing steel that's bright and true
    They carry news that must get through
    They choose the path where no-one goes

Posted 08 February 2005 - 01:02 AM

What can we expect in the way of new generation nukes with regards to the onslaught of nano-technology?

Edited by joc, 08 February 2005 - 01:02 AM.

Posted Image
once i believed that starlight could guide me home
now i know that light is old and stars are cold

ReverbNation

#4    Mekorig

Mekorig

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,577 posts
  • Joined:08 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Argentina

  • A Lithium flower about to bloom

Posted 08 February 2005 - 01:59 AM

and later they shout to th world because th iranians look for a nuclear weapon...

Im an evil pinko UN slave liberal commie

I don't think any of these "The Vague Society of Nebulous Meanies are going to take over the world and light up a planet" theories worry too much about practical considerations like that. It's all about rousing ill-informed, paranoiac fear, not making sense.

--Jaylemurph


Posted Image

#5    Thanato

Thanato

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,158 posts
  • Joined:27 Jun 2004

Posted 08 February 2005 - 02:17 AM

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." ~George W. Bush

Gotta like that one eh,

~Thanato

"Your toast has been burnt, and no amount of scrapping will remove the black parts!" ~Caboose

"I will eat your unhappyness!" ~Caboose

****
"Freedom isn't bought in stores, it is bought on battlefields." ~Thanato
****

#6    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,903 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 08 February 2005 - 04:16 AM

QUOTE
and later they shout to th world because th iranians look for a nuclear weapon...


Theres a difference. The US already has nuclear weapons. The world is supposed to prevent the proliferation of them though.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#7    warden

warden

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,751 posts
  • Joined:10 Dec 2004
  • Location:scotland midlothian

Posted 08 February 2005 - 10:56 AM

What is wrong with updating your old system for a more up to date one

The russians didnt have the money to do it and look what happened to theire submarine,there were many lifes lost but that could have been a catastraphy

If only they had the money to update old existing ones


#8    Seraphina

Seraphina

    Voted Best Member 2005

  • Member
  • 7,133 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2003
  • Location:Paisley, Scotland

  • Everyone likes a smouldering and sexy glare from a diminutive scientist.

Posted 08 February 2005 - 01:34 PM

Perhaps I missed the new memo being passed around the office...but weren't there supposed to be steps that were underway to limit the number of nuclear weapons in the world and, in time, eliminate them? huh.gif

I do not consider "making them more deadly so we don't need as many" to be a good way of doing this.



Posted Image

Apparantly, over on Exchristian.Net, they say that I'm "probably the smartest person" on UM....that is so cool...

#9    bathory

bathory

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,302 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 08 February 2005 - 03:09 PM

QUOTE
eant to be more rugged and reliable


i guess the idea is that they have a new one that will definately work, instead of 5 old ones that might not? is that the kind of idea?


#10    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

  • Member
  • 14,465 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Milky Way Galaxy 3rd planet

  • They're wearing steel that's bright and true
    They carry news that must get through
    They choose the path where no-one goes

Posted 08 February 2005 - 03:18 PM

QUOTE
Perhaps I missed the new memo being passed around the office...but weren't there supposed to be steps that were underway to limit the number of nuclear weapons in the world and, in time, eliminate them?
  
  
Apparently! rolleyes.gif  
  
You see your Godessness, the treaties were made with the USSR.  When the USSR went bye-bye, so did the treaties.  Besides, this is the REAL world we live in.  Unfortunately, there will always be Nukes in the REAL world.  Only in half-baked liberal fantasies does a world exist in which all the Nukes have been eliminated.  
  
You aren't typing on a 1989 computer are you?  Well, weapons systems are no different.  They must be continually upgraded.  No brainer. tongue.gif

Posted Image
once i believed that starlight could guide me home
now i know that light is old and stars are cold

ReverbNation

#11    Athenian

Athenian

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 906 posts
  • Joined:04 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • Those who fear the coming Apocalypse, Thou are my enemy.

Posted 08 February 2005 - 03:40 PM

Hmmmm, We shall nuke the nukes then...!  ph34r.gif


#12    fearfulone

fearfulone

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 713 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2003
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

  • Believe no one that believes you...Trust no one that trusts you...and for your own sake...don't listen to a word i say

Posted 08 February 2005 - 04:04 PM

Umm, is anyone looking at that story closely? i dont know, i know its on yahoo and all, but...doesnt 9 million dollars sounds a little, no, way too little money to be developing new nuclear weapons...come on now...

Trust no one that trusts you!

"you will need at least two more of the male variety to even pose a threat to us women... remember ... we can think with both the right and left sides of our brain!"
-nxt2hvn

CONSPIRACY I SAY!! CONSPIRACY!

"It's not the bad things that happen to you your upset about, it's the good things that happen to other people that piss you off."
-Robert Udall in 'As Good As It Gets'

#13    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,903 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 08 February 2005 - 04:39 PM

QUOTE
Perhaps I missed the new memo being passed around the office...but weren't there supposed to be steps that were underway to limit the number of nuclear weapons in the world and, in time, eliminate them?


Yes, but the nuclear strength might stay constant or even diminish... they may just be replacing the old ones. You dont want to be caught in a nuclear war with faulty equipment.

Either way, what does it matter whether we have 1000 nukes or 10 000 nukes? I dont think the 2nd one will hurt me after the 1st has killed me.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#14    Mekorig

Mekorig

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,577 posts
  • Joined:08 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Argentina

  • A Lithium flower about to bloom

Posted 08 February 2005 - 07:39 PM

If there is a nuclear war, i will dont matter if 10 from 1000 ICBM hit of fail. We are gonna be dead or diying in the next days.Cheer up Joc, go and hug you nuclear weapons.

and later i sak myself why the world is in this condition...

Im an evil pinko UN slave liberal commie

I don't think any of these "The Vague Society of Nebulous Meanies are going to take over the world and light up a planet" theories worry too much about practical considerations like that. It's all about rousing ill-informed, paranoiac fear, not making sense.

--Jaylemurph


Posted Image

#15    Fluffybunny

Fluffybunny

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,136 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Male

  • "Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."
    Thomas Paine

Posted 08 February 2005 - 08:49 PM

QUOTE(fearfulone @ Feb 8 2005, 08:04 AM)
Umm, is anyone looking at that story closely? i dont know, i know its on yahoo and all, but...doesnt 9 million dollars sounds a little, no, way too little money to be developing new nuclear weapons...come on now...

View Post



This is just the research phase, that 9 million is not how much will go into the actual building of the bombs. They are working on how to develop the new bombs that will last much longer.

I had read somewhere that the nuclear trigger of the weapons we built in the 60's and 70's had to be of a certain potentcy in order to be able to trigger the nuclear explosion. I guess that material degrades at a relatively high rate and therefore becomes a problem as the weapons would just fly to their target and make a little tiny crunching noise as they fall to the ground rather than the big white hot explosion that they were designed for.

It would be about as effective as flinging a Buick to the target area. Not that I would ever want to actually find out mind you...

Either way it is sad that we are still trying to work so hard on the nuclear deterents as no legitimate country is going to be the first to strike with a nuclear weapon, it would most likely be a rogue terrorist organization. It isn't like you can strike back with a nuclear weapon against the likes of the terrorist networks; they aren't very forward with their current addresses in order to know where to send the bomb...

Great...another arms race rolleyes.gif



Too many people on both sides of the spectrum have fallen into this mentality that a full one half of the country are the enemy for having different beliefs...in a country based on freedom of expression. It is this infighting that allows the focus to be taken away from "we the people" being able to watch, and have control over government corruption and ineptitude that is running rampant in our leadership.

People should be working towards fixing problems, not creating them.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users