The United States has finalised a design for a new generation of nuclear warheads in a major step toward construction of the first new atomic weapon since the Cold War with the former Soviet Union came to an end in the early 1990s.

The National Nuclear Security Administration announced the new approved design for replacement of warheads for a portion of the nation's sea-based weapons that will provide a more secure, smaller and safer stockpile.

"The Reliable Replacement Warhead design concept utilizes modern technology that was not available during the Cold War when our nuclear weapons were designed and built. This will permit significant upgrades in safety and security features in the replacement of warhead," said Thomas P D'Agostino, NNSA's acting administrator.

The Lawrence Livermore and Sandia National Laboratories were selected to develop the RRW and the selected design can be certified without requiring underground nuclear testing.

The selection of the new design comes at a time when the Bush administration is trying to control the nuclear programmes of both Iran and North Korea and critics have been saying that it sends the wrong signals.

"The minute you begin to put more sophisticated nuclear warheads on the existing fleet, you are essentially creating a new nuclear weapon. And it's just a matter of time before other nations do the same," Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein said, adding, "This could serve to encourage the very proliferation we are trying to prevent."

Non-Proliferation advocates have made the point that the latest move could lead to proliferation and that there is no need to replace the Cold War era stockpile.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/mar/03us.htm

Why?

Because their old ones are degrading. When the plutonium in them decays they release hydrogen. This is extremely hard to manage and control.

Because their old ones are degrading. When the plutonium in them decays they release hydrogen. This is extremely hard to manage and control.

And they are replacing them because...?

And they are replacing them because...?

So we'll have them.

So we'll have them.

And other countries? What do you think will be their response to this?

The answer to that is extremely obvious. I am not here to debate the morality of a nuclear arsenal. I merely pointing out _why_ they are making changes to their nuclear arsenal.

Their current system is going defunct, if they wish to retain their nuclear dominance they need an arsenal that works... not a 50`s based system that fails.

And other countries? What do you think will be their response to this?

You would have to be extremely ignorant if you think other countries would stop their nuclear development plans because the US simply maintains their current stockpile.

Edit: China is increasing their weapons spending by 17%... the biggest jump in decades. Do you think that money is going towards polishing their guns and handing out aid to people in African countries?

Maybe we should all just throw away the NPT.

Seems like a pointless piece of paper.

NPT is so other countries don't develop nukes not for the countries who already developed them.

. Why?
The Emperor must have his Thunderbolts...
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/9591/bushthumbsup3195withub2.jpg

More specifically:
``SEC. 4204a. RELIABLE REPLACEMENT WARHEAD PROGRAM.

``(a) Program Required.--The Secretary of Energy shall carry out a program, to be known as the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, which will have the following objectives:

``(1) To increase the reliability, safety, and security of the United States nuclear weapons stockpile.

``(2) To further reduce the likelihood of the resumption of underground nuclear weapons testing.

``(3) To remain consistent with basic design parameters by including, to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with the objective specified in paragraph (2), components that are well understood or are certifiable without the need to resume underground nuclear weapons testing.

``(4) To ensure that the nuclear weapons infrastructure can respond to unforeseen problems, to include the ability to produce replacement warheads that are safer to manufacture, more cost-effective to produce, and less costly to maintain than existing warheads.

``(5) To achieve reductions in the future size of the nuclear weapons stockpile based on increased reliability of the reliable replacement warheads.

``(6) To use the design, certification, and production expertise resident in the nuclear complex to develop reliable replacement components to fulfill current mission requirements of the existing stockpile.

``(7) To serve as a complement to, and potentially a more cost-effective and reliable long-term replacement for, the current Stockpile Life Extension Programs.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/rrw.htm

Further:
Prior nuclear weapons produced by the U.S. had historically become extremely compact, low weight, highly integrated, and low-margin designs which used exotic materials, in many cases toxic or unstable materials. A number of older US designs used high explosive types which degraded over time, some of which became dangerously unstable in short lifetimes (PBX-9404 and LX-09).[1][2][3][4][5] Some of these explosives have cracked in warheads in storage, resulting in dangerous storage and dissassembly conditions.[6]

The use of beryllium and highly toxic beryllium oxide material as neutron reflector layers was a major health hazard to bomb manufacturer and maintenance staff. The long term stability of plutonium metal, which may lose strength, crack, or otherwise degrade over time is also a concern
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliable_Replacement_Warhead


And other countries? What do you think will be their response to this?
What about their response to this ?

We have increased this year's dismantlement rate to 50 percent above last year, and in just five years, the US nuclear weapons stockpile will be at its lowest point since the Eisenhower administration

What about their response to this ?

We have increased this year's dismantlement rate to 50 percent above last year, and in just five years, the US nuclear weapons stockpile will be at its lowest point since the Eisenhower administration

Statistics are so deceptive:
The Bush administration announced in 2004 that it had decided to cut the nuclear weapons stockpile "nearly in half" by 2012, but has refused to disclose the actual numbers. Yet a fact sheet published by the Federation of American Scientists and Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that the stockpile will decline from approximately 9,938 warheads today to approximately 5,047 warheads by the end of 2012.



The 2012 stockpile of 5,000+ warheads represent a significant reduction from the 24,000 warhead stockpile of the 1980s (and the all-time high of 32,000 warheads in 1966), but it still a very big post-Cold War stockpile. No other country with nuclear weapons is known to plan a stockpile that big. The only other country with several thousand warheads in 2012 will be Russia, but it probably only maintains a large stockpile because the United States does.

Most of the 2012 stockpile will not be counted by the SORT treaty signed by the United States and Russia in 2002. That treaty only counts "operational deployed strategic nuclear warheads," which are not to exceed 2,200 by the end of 2012. The FAS/NRDC fact sheet estimates that 2,192 US warheads will be counted by SORT, leaving another another 2,855 "invisible" warheads. The number of uncounted warheads will be even greater in Russia because it retains many more non-strategic nuclear weapons than the United States.

Approximately half of the warheads in the 2012 stockpile will be active and ready to launch on relatively short notice. This indicates that US nuclear posture planning 17 years after the end of the Cold War is still dominated by a nuclear warfighting mentality.

Secret Dismantlements

Dismantling the nearly 4,900 retired warheads will take much longer to accomplish than the stockpile plan. By 2012, approximately 3,660 of the retired warheads will still be in storage. The reason is that the US dismantlement facility at Pantex in Texas is busy extending the lives of the many warheads the administration has decided must remain in the stockpile. Dismantlement will not be a priority for the next decade. Under current plans, dismantling the backlog of retired warheads will take until 2023, at an average rate of some 272 warheads per year.

Nuclear dismantlements, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) told Congress in 2006, represent "a key element of our strategy to ensure that stockpile and infrastructure transformation is not misperceived by other nations as 'restarting the arms race.'" In fact, NNSA explained, "our commitment to a smaller stockpile is made concrete by our record of accelerated dismantlements."

That record is not very impressive. Although the administration says it plans to dismantle 50 percent more warheads in 2007 than in 2006, the actual numbers are small - probably about 200 warheads per year - and a far cry from the average of 1,100 warheads dismantled at the Pantex Plant each year during the 1990s. In fact, the Bush administration has dismantled the smallest number of nuclear weapons of any US administration since 1957, a record that is expected to continue through 2023 under current plans (see figure below).

etc.
http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/estimates_of_us_nuclear_weapon.php

And they are replacing them because...?

Why is India stocking nukes, Sam?

Baron Max

Why is India stocking nukes, Sam?

Baron Max

Notice we haven't attacked any country lately for presumably desiring nuclear technology?

Notice we haven't attacked any country lately for presumably desiring nuclear technology?

Hmm, no, that's not true. India bitched and moaned and complained and.... when Pakistan began developing their own nukes. Why?

Baron Max

But, Sam, that still doesn't answer my question .....Why does India have nuclear weapons?

Baron Max

But, Sam, that still doesn't answer my question .....Why does India have nuclear weapons?

Baron Max

So the US doesn't attack us. I strongly recommend this preemptive measure to all countries at risk for "liberation" by the US.

So the US doesn't attack us. I strongly recommend this preemptive measure to all countries at risk for "liberation" by the US.

India's few nukes can't even get to the US ....so how is it stopping us from attacking you?

Baron Max

India's few nukes can't even get to the US ....so how is it stopping us from attacking you?

Baron Max

Neither could Saddam's WMDs, but that didn't stop the US. Having the technology itself is a big advantage, after all you never know what Indian scientists might come up with.

It would be nice if they would safely get rid of old nukes first and actually carry less weapons on hand. When I see it I'll believe it. Otherwise, I call U.S a nuke "consumer".

Neither could Saddam's WMDs, but that didn't stop the US.

The UN would do nothing about Sadman, so we did it ourselves!

Having the technology itself is a big advantage, after all you never know what Indian scientists might come up with.

But why make it into weapons, Sam? Nuclear energy is one thing, but weapons? Bombs? ICBMs? Why does India have nuclear weapons, Sam?

Baron Max

samcdkey,
So the US doesn't attack us.
:D What could India possibly have that the US wants???
Having the technology itself is a big advantage, after all you never know what Indian scientists might come up with.
Hell, they can't even build a decent RIFLE. :D

It would be nice if they would safely get rid of old nukes first and actually carry less weapons on hand.

Why?

Baron Max

The UN would do nothing about Sadman, so we did it ourselves!


If its state terrorism that bothers the US why don't they take a good long look in the mirror?:rolleyes:


But why make it into weapons, Sam? Nuclear energy is one thing, but weapons? Bombs? ICBMs? Why does India have nuclear weapons, Sam?

Baron Max

So the US doesn't attack us. Americans are having a hard time against cavemen with out of date Kalashnikovs; they'd never take a chance attacking a country with real weapons.:D

samcdkey,

:D What could India possibly have that the US wants???

Hell, they can't even build a decent RIFLE. :D

Yeah explains why everyone is investing in India.;)

So the US doesn't attack us.

India has a few lousy nukes, Sam ....and they can't even get those to the US to do any damage whatsoever. So why should the US be scared of India's nukes? If the US invaded India, are you saying that India would bomb their own nation, their own people, with those nukes??? ....LOL!

Baron Max

Yeah explains why everyone is investing in India.

People aren't investing in India, Sam, we're USING India's resources ....the Indian people who can't find good jobs in India, western nations hire them, use them, to produce goods that western nations buy.

Baron Max

India has a few lousy nukes, Sam ....and they can't even get those to the US to do any damage whatsoever. So why should the US be scared of India's nukes? If the US invaded India, are you saying that India would bomb their own nation, their own people, with those nukes??? ....LOL!

Baron Max

LOL all you want, there's always a way. Much good all the US paranoia did during 9/11:rolleyes:

People aren't investing in India, Sam, we're USING India's resources ....the Indian people who can't find good jobs in India, western nations hire them, use them, to produce goods that western nations buy.

Baron Max

Yeah, thats what capitalism is all about, or didn't you know?
You'd be surprised how many Americans are taking their money out of dollar investments and into India.

Why?

Baron Max

They signed a nuke proliferation treaty and need to keep the arsenal to a certain level. Also it's probably more economical.

Why not keep the weapons to the level of nuking the whole world 2 times over...5 times over seems a bit of a waste. Like I said nuke consumerism.

LOL all you want, there's always a way.

Oh, yeah, that's right ....there's Muslims in India. So if India wanted to bomb the USA, they'd just get a bunch of Muslims, strap the nukes to their bodies and the Muslims would be happy to swim to the US and suicide-bomb the women and children of the US!

Baron Max

Oh, yeah, that's right ....there's Muslims in India. So if India wanted to bomb the USA, they'd just get a bunch of Muslims, strap the nukes to their bodies and the Muslims would be happy to swim to the US and suicide-bomb the women and children of the US!

Baron Max

Nah, thats too violent. Besides in 20 years the Americans will be too fat to move.

Nah, thats too violent.

Ain't no such thing for Muslims of the world!

Baron Max

Ain't no such thing for Muslims of the world!

Baron Max

Thats what they keep telling me, but I keep seeing American troops invading all countries, not those from any Muslim countries.

Thats what they keep telling me, but I keep seeing American troops invading all countries, not those from any Muslim countries.

True. But it's the Muslims who are doing all the killing and bombing and blowing up of Muslim women and children. Don't you find it interesting that the Muslims keep blowing up their own people?

Baron Max

True. But it's the Muslims who are doing all the killing and bombing and blowing up of Muslim women and children. Don't you find it interesting that the Muslims keep blowing up their own people?

Baron Max

Is that like the Muslim Nicaraguans killing Nicaraguans? The Muslim Ethiopians killing Ethiopians? The Muslim Israelis killing Palestinians? The Muslim Americans killing Iraqis? The Muslim LTTE killing the Sri Lankans? *yawn*

Everyone is a Muslim at heart.

Huh? Why new WMDs? Why not invent weapons that could directly automatically target only libtards and commies? Then we shouldn't need WMDs.

Huh? Why new WMDs? Why not invent weapons that could directly automatically target only libtards and commies? Then we shouldn't need WMDs.
Heat-seeking missiles would be very effective here. Libtards and commies are notoriously warm-blooded. ;)

Is that like the Muslim Nicaraguans killing Nicaraguans? The Muslim Ethiopians killing Ethiopians? The Muslim Israelis killing Palestinians? The Muslim Americans killing Iraqis? The Muslim LTTE killing the Sri Lankans? *yawn*

Very interesting comment, Sam. Only a Muslim could *yawn* after citing so many deadly conflicts in the world. Yes, very interesting ....and telling of the Muslim attitude, too.

Baron Max

Very interesting comment, Sam. Only a Muslim could *yawn* after citing so many deadly conflicts in the world. Yes, very interesting ....and telling of the Muslim attitude, too.

Baron Max

You wanna fight old man?:bugeye:

*sneer*

You wanna fight old man?

We've been fighting since I came to this sleezy site. And I ain't gonna' stop, either.

Baron Max

We've been fighting since I came to this sleezy site. And I ain't gonna' stop, either.

Baron Max

You've been fighting; I'm just being a gnat. *buzzzzzzzzzz*

You've been fighting; I'm just being a gnat. *buzzzzzzzzzz*

Like all Muslims of the world, Sam?

Baron Max

Like all Muslims of the world, Sam?

Baron Max

Nah, I'm especially odious and irritating.:D

Nah, I'm especially odious and irritating.

I know ...ye're a Muslim!

Baron Max

I know ...ye're a Muslim!

Baron Max

You'd be surprised how many of them share your feelings about me.:D

You'd be surprised how many of them share your feelings about me.

No I wouldn't be surprised at all.

Baron Max

So the US doesn't attack us.
so india can use this excuse and not america?

so india can use this excuse and not america?

Not when they are using it to do the attacking

when have they used the new n bombs to attack anybody?

when have they used the new n bombs to attack anybody?

They use it to threaten people all the time. And now they've made it "legal" to preemptively strike a country with N-bombs. What a crock of shit.

What a crock of shit.
remember that the next time you need an education.

remember that the next time you need an education.

Why? if I am a good teacher, does that make it alright for me to threaten bully and kill people for my benefit?

Why? if I am a good teacher, does that make it alright for me to threaten bully and kill people for my benefit?
why do you incessantly rag on the US when indias problems of corruption and torture exists?

why do you rag on americas "bullying" when india is just as guilty?

why do you incessantly rag on the US when indias problems of corruption and torture exists?

why do you rag on americas "bullying" when india is just as guilty?

One does not validate or negate the other.

i believe it's time the american people stopped kissing ass and start kicking it instead.

i wonder how much US production india has secured from america at 1995 prices and demand that they be fulfilled, even though it hurts the american people to do so?

the US police force do not torture its citizens with impunity.

although india hasn't flaunted the bomb it's ludicrous to think other nations will not develop weapons to counter the indian threat.

one has to wonder why you are so biased.

i believe it's time the american people stopped kissing ass and start kicking it instead.

i wonder how much US production india has secured from america at 1995 prices and demand that they be fulfilled, even though it hurts the american people to do so?

the US police force do not torture its citizens with impunity.

although india hasn't flaunted the bomb it's ludicrous to think other nations will not develop weapons to counter the indian threat.

one has to wonder why you are so biased.

Its not a competition.:yawn:

Its not a competition.:yawn:
answers none of the points i raised.

answers none of the points i raised.

Cos they are all fantasies of your deluded mind.

one has to wonder why you are so biased.

I think she was stopped by the police in the USA, where she came to be educated in college, and she tried to proclaim her innocence but the police wouldn't listen and arrested her or ticketed her. Since then, she's been in a jihad with the US and all of it's people.

Baron Max

India has em because Pakistan has them or one way or the other. Its a case of "He has em, so why shouldn't I" syndrome. Works well with everything.

Know why India got the bomb? Because stupid-ass Canada gave them a CandU reactor, hoping they would just power a few lightbulbs to read by.

I hate my country sometimes. There is such a thing as too nice. We are the only nuclear power that has no nuclear weapons though.