Paulo Posted February 7, 2005 #1 Share Posted February 7, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted February 8, 2005 #2 Share Posted February 8, 2005 so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted February 8, 2005 #3 Share Posted February 8, 2005 (edited) What can we expect in the way of new generation nukes with regards to the onslaught of nano-technology? Edited February 8, 2005 by joc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekorig Posted February 8, 2005 #4 Share Posted February 8, 2005 and later they shout to th world because th iranians look for a nuclear weapon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanato Posted February 8, 2005 #5 Share Posted February 8, 2005 "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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted February 8, 2005 #6 Share Posted February 8, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warden Posted February 8, 2005 #7 Share Posted February 8, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphina Posted February 8, 2005 #8 Share Posted February 8, 2005 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? I do not consider "making them more deadly so we don't need as many" to be a good way of doing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted February 8, 2005 #9 Share Posted February 8, 2005 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted February 8, 2005 #10 Share Posted February 8, 2005 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! 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athenian Posted February 8, 2005 #11 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Hmmmm, We shall nuke the nukes then...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fearfulone Posted February 8, 2005 #12 Share Posted February 8, 2005 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted February 8, 2005 #13 Share Posted February 8, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekorig Posted February 8, 2005 #14 Share Posted February 8, 2005 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffybunny Posted February 8, 2005 #15 Share Posted February 8, 2005 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... 480056[/snapback] 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forgotfel Posted February 8, 2005 #16 Share Posted February 8, 2005 We're just keeping up with the rest of the world, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted February 8, 2005 #17 Share Posted February 8, 2005 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... What does matter, though, is if another country launches 1000 ICBMs, and you can only launch 10. With that ratio, some countries might be tempted to do it and might think the casualties would be acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted February 8, 2005 #18 Share Posted February 8, 2005 (edited) What does matter, though, is if another country launches 1000 ICBMs, and you can only launch 10. With that ratio, some countries might be tempted to do it and might think the casualties would be acceptable. I think more to the point is what is the end result if say N. Korea launched 10 warheads at the USA and we launched 1000 at them and all 10 of theirs worked and none of ours did. At any rate, yes I shall hug my Nuclear Stockpile. It is the deterent to Nuclear Destruction so we must hug and embrace it. Edited February 8, 2005 by joc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekorig Posted February 9, 2005 #19 Share Posted February 9, 2005 During the cold war both the USA has large nuclear stockpiles has Nuclear Destruction deterent, but during that era both were in the brink of the same nuclear destruccion some times. If we go to the facts, i trust more in a democratic goverment to have WMDs that in a theocracy, but i dont trust Bush or his gabinet to manage one of the largest nuclear stockpiles of the world. Its like a monkey whit a knife, its some crazy Damocles sword pending about our global heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted February 9, 2005 #20 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Russia has also been developing new ICBMs that can avoid the proposed missile shield... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted February 9, 2005 #21 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Really? Can you provide a link? Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted February 9, 2005 #22 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Nov 17, 9:19 AM EST Russia Developing New Nuclear Missile MOSCOW (AP) -- President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that Russia is developing a new form of nuclear missile unlike those held by other countries, news agencies reported. Speaking at a meeting of the Armed Forces' leadership, Putin reportedly said that Russia is researching and successfully testing new nuclear missile systems. "I am sure that ... they will be put in service within the next few years and, what is more, they will be developments of the kind that other nuclear powers do not and will not have," Putin was quoted as saying by the ITAR-Tass news agency. Putin reportedly said: "International terrorism is one of the major threats for Russia. We understand as soon as we ignore such components of our defense as a nuclear and missile shield, other threats may occur." No details were immediately available, but Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said earlier this month that Russia expected to test-fire a mobile version of its Topol-M ballistic missile this year and that production of the new weapon could be commissioned in 2005. News reports have also said Russia is believed to be developing a next-generation heavy nuclear missile that could carry up to 10 nuclear warheads weighing a total of 4.4 tons, compared with the Topol-M's 1.32-ton combat payload. Topol-Ms have been deployed in silos since 1998. The missiles have a range of about 6,000 miles and reportedly can maneuver in ways that are difficult to detect. Earlier this year, a senior Defense Ministry official was quoted as telling news agencies that Russia had developed a weapon that could make the United States' proposed missile-defense system useless. Details were not given, but military analysts said the claimed new weapon could be a hypersonic cruise missile or maneuverable ballistic missile warheads. © 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy. i couldn't find the link to the actual AP article, but i found a reporduction of it on another forum, i'm pretty sure it was also discussed on these forums too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenojjin Posted February 9, 2005 #23 Share Posted February 9, 2005 New suicide items . Nice . Way to go human race . I think we should go back to swords . At least back then there was some honor and skill involved rather then this "Biggest gun wins" bullsh*t . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekorig Posted February 9, 2005 #24 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Has i said in another post, i can only hopa that someone create a FTL engine so i can leave this global sanitarium.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athenian Posted February 9, 2005 #25 Share Posted February 9, 2005 New suicide items . Nice . Way to go human race . I think we should go back to swords . At least back then there was some honor and skill involved rather then this "Biggest gun wins" bullsh*t . 480941[/snapback] Then we shall charge the missile silos brandishing swords! An example must be set... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now