[Dark Helmet]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 — The Bush administration is expected to announce next week a major step forward in the building of the country’s first new nuclear warhead in nearly two decades. It will propose combining elements of competing designs from two weapons laboratories in an approach that some experts argue is untested and risky.

The new weapon would not add to but replace the nation’s existing arsenal of aging warheads, with a new generation meant to be sturdier, more reliable, safer from accidental detonation and more secure from theft by terrorists.

The announcement, to be made by the interagency Nuclear Weapons Council, avoids making a choice between the two designs for a new weapon, called the Reliable Replacement Warhead, which at first would be mounted on submarine-launched missiles.

The effort, if approved by President Bush and financed by Congress, would require a huge refurbishment of the nation’s complex for nuclear design and manufacturing, with the overall bill estimated at more than $100 billion.

But the council’s decision to seek a hybrid design, combining well-tested elements from an older design with new safety and security elements from a more novel approach, could delay the weapon’s production. It also raises the question of whether the United States will ultimately be forced to end its moratorium on underground nuclear testing to make sure the new design works.

On Friday, Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration of the Energy Department, said the government would not proceed with the Reliable Replacement Warhead “if it is determined that testing is needed.” But other officials in the administration, including Robert Joseph, the under secretary of state for arms control and international security, have said that the White House should make no commitment on testing.

Congress authorized exploratory research for the weapon three years ago, and has financed it at relatively low levels since. But now the costs will begin to increase.

If Mr. Bush decides to deploy the new design, he could touch off a debate in a Democrat-controlled Congress and among allies and adversaries abroad, who have opposed efforts to modernize the arsenal in the past. While proponents of the new weapon said that it would replace older weapons that could deteriorate over time, and reduce the chances of a detonation if weapons fell into the wrong hands, critics have long argued that this is the wrong moment for Washington to produce a new nuclear warhead of any kind.

At a time when the administration is trying to convince the world to put sanctions on North Korea and Iran to halt their nuclear programs, those critics argue, any move to improve the American arsenal will be seen as hypocritical, an effort by the United States to extend its nuclear lead over other countries. Should the United States decide to conduct a test, officials said, China and Russia — which have their own nuclear modernization programs under way — would feel free to do the same. North Korea was sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council for conducting its first test on Oct. 9, and it may be preparing for more, experts said.

Both administration officials and military officers like Gen. James E. Cartwright, head of the Strategic Command, which controls the nation’s nuclear arsenal, argue that because the United States provides a nuclear umbrella for so many allies, it is critical that its stockpile be as reliable as possible.

“We will not ‘un-invent’ nuclear weapons, and we will not walk away from the world,” General Cartwright said in a recent interview. “Right now, it is not the nation’s position that zero is the answer to the size of our inventory.”

“So, if you are going to have these weapons, they should be safe, they should be able to be secured, and they should be reliable if used,” General Cartwright said in the interview, conducted before the Department of Energy’s decision was announced.

The current schedule, which is subject to change, would call for the president to make a decision in a year or two and, if approved, to begin engineering development by fiscal year 2010 and production by 2012.

The two teams competing to design the weapon, one at Los Alamos in New Mexico, the other at the Livermore National Laboratory in California, approached the problem with very different philosophies, nuclear officials and experts said. Livermore drew on a single, robust design that, before the testing moratorium, was detonated in the 1980s under a desolate patch of Nevada desert. The weapon, however, never entered the nation’s nuclear stockpile.

The Los Alamos team drew on aspects of many weapons from the stockpile and pulled them together in a novel design that has never undergone testing.

A winner of the competition was to have been announced in November. But federal officials said they had a hard time choosing between the two designs, calling both excellent.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/wa...mp;oref=slogin
----

So where is all this money coming from and what does anybody needs with all these nukes? Wouldn't just about any war be over with about 10 of them?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

So where is all this money coming from

You need to ask where all the money is going to. And the answer is: mostly to pay the wages of the folks employed by the defence industry and their supporting industries (i.e. the shop where Mr DefenceIndustryEmployee buys his groceries).

[iLikebeer]

the positive to this would be that a lot of the old warheads could go to better designed and newly built nuclear powerplants to fuel electric or hydrogen cars and help reduce our dependence on mideast oil

[turtle777]

I'm gonna buy one of these old warheads off eBay.

-t

[Dark Helmet]

Can you imagine all the others things the US could spend 100 billion on other than WMD's?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

Can you imagine all the others things the US could spend 100 billion on other than WMD's?

Buy Canada ?

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Buy Canada ?

-t

And the other $97 bn ?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And the other $97 bn ?

I, sorry, I thought Canada came with the UK and Aussieland included.

My bad...

-t

[Kevin]

I haven't seen a thread like this posted since marden left. Wonder if anyone reported it.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

Can you imagine all the others things the US could spend 100 billion on other than WMD's?

10 packages of Oreos for every man, woman, and child on the planet.
But then the rest of the world would just hate us because we didn't chip in for the milk. You guys are never happy.

[Kevin]

Little does he know those are keeping his ass safe as well. And he doesn't have to spend a dime.

No thanks I tell ya..

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Buy Canada ?

-t

Just keep Quebec out of the deal.

[Dakar²]

We could nuke the poor with old warheads. Two birds, one stone, you know.

[macintologist]

Instead of stealing our money, why doesn't the government ask for voluntary contributions for this project?

Those who support the idea could cut the government a check of their preferred amount, and those that hate the idea could simply ignore it and keep their money.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Instead of stealing our money, why doesn't the government ask for voluntary contributions for this project?

Those who support the idea could cut the government a check of their preferred amount, and those that hate the idea could simply ignore it and keep their money.

I'm all for that.

Show me where I sign on the dotted line to stop paying for someone else's kids to go to school.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm all for that.

Show me where I sign on the dotted line to stop paying for someone else's kids to go to school.

Oh I totally support your right to keep your money and spend it on your own kids, or not, or to donate it to another school, or not.

I'm glad we agree on such important issues

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Instead of stealing our money, why doesn't the government ask for voluntary contributions for this project?

Those who support the idea could cut the government a check of their preferred amount, and those that hate the idea could simply ignore it and keep their money.

You know, I am tired of funding road construction on roads I don't drive on.

I want the money back for paying for the street lights anywhere it didn't benefit me.

I hate paying for art I can't stand.

I abhor the waste that goes to pay the salaries and benefits to democrats.

I want PBS to not get a single cent from me.

I want my money back that went to planned parenthood.

Don't I sound stupid?

over 50% of the population voted for the current leadership to run the republic. It is not a pure democracy, get over it.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Oh I totally support your right to keep your money and spend it on your own kids, or not, or to donate it to another school, or not.

I'm glad we agree on such important issues

Why do you take advantage of other people and use their money for your education? do you have any idea how much it would cost if you paid the entire actual cost? You are very driven by your emotions and feelings. You often don't think things through very well.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I haven't seen a thread like this posted since marden left. Wonder if anyone reported it.

I thought about it, but since SWF is not a habitual offender, I didn't.

-t

[Zarqawi's Eye]

You Americans are going to need those nukes. Iran's ayatollahs are building an arsenal and the world is impotent to stop them.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Zarqawi's Eye 

You Americans are going to need those nukes. Iran's ayatollahs are building an arsenal and the world is impotent to stop them.

Dude, are you for real ?

Prepare to be flamed !

-t

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

You know, I am tired of funding road construction on roads I don't drive on.

I want the money back for paying for the street lights anywhere it didn't benefit me.

I hate paying for art I can't stand.

I abhor the waste that goes to pay the salaries and benefits to democrats.

I want PBS to not get a single cent from me.

I want my money back that went to planned parenthood.

Don't I sound stupid?

over 50% of the population voted for the current leadership to run the republic. It is not a pure democracy, get over it.

You sound really intelligent, just make sure to amend "unless I voluntarily wanted to" to each statement and you'll be all set.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

You sound really intelligent, just make sure to amend "unless I voluntarily wanted to" to each statement and you'll be all set.

How does pretending that you voluntarily do things that you have no choice over, make you sound intelligent ?

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

You know, I am tired of funding road construction on roads I don't drive on.

I want the money back for paying for the street lights anywhere it didn't benefit me.

I hate paying for art I can't stand.

I abhor the waste that goes to pay the salaries and benefits to democrats.

I want PBS to not get a single cent from me.

I want my money back that went to planned parenthood.

Don't I sound stupid?

over 50% of the population voted for the current leadership to run the republic. It is not a pure democracy, get over it.

Awesome argument for socialism!

[Zarqawi's Eye]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Dude, are you for real ?

Prepare to be flamed !

-t

I hail from the first days of the pol-war lounge, when it was first created many years ago. I have served the cause of anti-terrorism and steely-balled foreign policies long before many of you were old enough to register.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Zarqawi's Eye 

I hail from the first days of the pol-war lounge, when it was first created many years ago. I have served the cause of anti-terrorism and steely-balled foreign policies long before many of you were old enough to register.

So what was your old nick, grand old master ?

Otherwise, I just have to assume you have been here only a couple of days, n00b...

-t

[Zarqawi's Eye]

I'm glad that you use 'n00b' as an argument. It reflects the elitism and naiveté of the West - that those not having a history someplace are not entitled to a voice in its governance.

The Old Europe and the secular progressives wander blindly in a fog of elitism, which leads its followers down a path of cursed policies.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

You sound really intelligent, just make sure to amend "unless I voluntarily wanted to" to each statement and you'll be all set.

Huh?!?

You think people should be able to opt out of all taxes? Or it should be "voluntary"? A la cart?

You have a very small mind. You certainly don't think things out very clearly do you?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Awesome argument for socialism!

How so?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Zarqawi's Eye 

I'm glad that you use 'n00b' as an argument. It reflects the elitism and naiveté of the West - that those not having a history someplace are not entitled to a voice in its governance.

The Old Europe and the secular progressives wander blindly in a fog of elitism, which leads its followers down a path of cursed policies.

You're weird. And not weird in a circus freak show attraction weird, but weird as in unintelligent and strangely faux-elitist weird.

You certainly have the jargon of a blind brainwashed fool down.

EDIT: I received an infraction for this post. Do you think it's because I called him "weird" or because I complimented him on having the jargon down?

[Zarqawi's Eye]

railroader, I haven't attacked you personally. Why attack me that way, as a "blind brainwashed fool"?

I rail (pun intended) against the weakness and largess of the West as it saps the will of the populace to fight for its very survival. The enemy we face - islamafascists - show no mercy and plan in the darkness of caves and in the coffee shops of Paris, London, and Madrid, enjoying the society we have worked hard to build while plotting its destruction.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Zarqawi's Eye 

railroader, I haven't attacked you personally. Why attack me that way, as a "blind brainwashed fool"?

I rail (pun intended) against the weakness and largess of the West as it saps the will of the populace to fight for its very survival. The enemy we face - islamafascists - show no mercy and plan in the darkness of caves and in the coffee shops of Paris, London, and Madrid, enjoying the society we have worked hard to build while plotting its destruction.

Why don't you rail against the "islamafascists"? The "West" is not sapping the "will of the populace to fight for it's very survival".

You are an extremist and your views are offensive to most.

You can't tell me that you expected not to be insulted and to be taken seriously. If you did, then you are ignorant.

[Zarqawi's Eye]

I do rail against them. But we must also realise that our struggle is within as much as much as it is without. Segments of our society plot daily to undermine the pillars of western civilisation - capitalism, values, fair-mindedness, respect, and self-reliance.

[Zarqawi's Eye]

What I did expect, however, was partially enlightened thoughts or arguments, not petty name-calling. Again, you lash out at those who disagree with you.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Zarqawi's Eye 

You Americans are going to need those nukes. Iran's ayatollahs are building an arsenal and the world is impotent to stop them.

The US needs nukes because while they don't have a big army, Americans really like war (but only on the TV and only when they're winning). The land war in Iraq has proven to be horrendously expensive television to produce (98% of the footage shot cannot be shown). So in order to keep the folks back home entertained (without losing a land war) they'll just nuke from afar and record it in high definition for prime time.

I ****ing love this planet.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

EDIT: I received an infraction for this post. Do you think it's because I called him "weird" or because I complimented him on having the jargon down?

Leave the tool alone, eh?

I get that.

[Zarqawi's Eye]

Gentlemen just because my point of view is different does not make me a "tool", as you so bluntly put it face ache

[Face Ache]

Your user account is a tool, isn't it?

[Zarqawi's Eye]

'Tis a tool, mate, of all warriors who seek enlightenment and to follow the path of truth against the tyranny of the secular-progressives and extreme liberals, who breed weakness and dependency at the cost of freedom.

[vmarks]

Do you people not know what the meaning of the rule "no personal attacks" is?

It means things like "you're a tool" and "you're a blind brainwashed fool" don't fit within the limits of the rules.

It means you're meant to take apart his ideas and deride them, not him, no matter how far wrong he may be.

Thank you.

With all my heart full of love, heart full of truth, four parts gin to one part vermouth,

vmarks.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Do you people not know what the meaning of the rule "no personal attacks" is?

It means things like "you're a tool" and "you're a blind brainwashed fool" don't fit within the limits of the rules.

As I said his user account is a tool. Also "tool of the west" sprang to mind.

I wasn't thinking phallic symbols at all.

Get your minds out of the gutter.


Also:

Originally Posted by vmarks 

It means things like "you're a tool" and...

I didn't say that.

[Zarqawi's Eye]

No use arguing face ache. All has been made clear.

Back on topic, however - new nukes are sorely needed, both as tactical miniatures and to replace the aging stockpile.

It would be very useful to have a nuke the size of a toy airplane that one could pilot into an enemy sub-surface, hardened structure, then detonate.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

"you're a blind brainwashed fool" don't fit within the limits of the rules.

I didn't say that. You are taking my post out of context.

[Zarqawi's Eye]

It's very obvious what everyone meant and what their intent was.

Please, let's get back to the topic.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I thought about it, but since SWF is not a habitual offender, I didn't.

-t

You kidding? He pastes and runs all the time. For example, this thread.

[Face Ache]

Is "tactical nukes" an oxymoron?

[Kerrigan]

I think these costs should be compared with how much the government spends on maintaining the aging nukes.

One of the reason that all the missing nukes from the USSR are not a big threat is because they cost loads and loads to keep up, something which private individuals or even terror groups can neither afford nor figure out how to do.

[Zarqawi's Eye]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Is "tactical nukes" an oxymoron?

Not in a very precise context. Think of a tactical nukes as something packaged very small, maybe like a football (soccer ball). It would blow up a block or an underground facility, but not a city or even a large part of it.

Here, a "tactical" nuke is used to achieve a powerful explosion in a tiny size - a size not achievable with conventional weapons, thus enabling very lethal and devastating precision strikes without expending the time or weight conventional explosives would require.

[Face Ache]

Yeah that's the theory.

Then someone yells "They're nuking us!" and all hell breaks loose.

Not good tactics.