Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: All right! We're getting a better nuke!
ieXbeta Board > Etc. > Political Sanctuary
Chugworth
QUOTE
U.S. to develop new hydrogen bomb
Lawrence Livermore may take the lead in an effort by three national labs. Aging warheads would be replaced.
By Ralph Vartabedian, Times Staff Writer
March 2, 2007


The Energy Department will announce today a contract to develop the nation's first new hydrogen bomb in two decades, involving a collaboration between three national weapons laboratories, The Times has learned.

The new bomb will include design features from all three labs, though Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the Bay Area appears to have taken the lead position in the project. The Los Alamos and Sandia labs in New Mexico will also be part of the project.

Teams of scientists in California and New Mexico have been working since last year to develop the new bomb, using the world's most powerful supercomputers.

The weapon is known as the reliable replacement warhead and is intended to replace aging warheads now deployed on missiles aboard Trident submarines.

The contract decision was made by the Nuclear Weapons Council, which consists of officials from the Defense Department and the National Nuclear Security Administration, part of the Energy Department. Plans were underway Thursday to announce the award this afternoon.

The nuclear administration will issue the contract and run the program.

The cost of the development is secret, though outside experts said it would cost billions of dollars — perhaps tens of billions — to develop the bomb, build factories to restart high-volume weapons production and then assemble the weapons.

If Livermore does become the lead laboratory, confidence in the facility is likely to be bolstered, and political suggestions that its role in weapons development is unnecessary could be quelled.

A lead role by Los Alamos would help extract that facility from deep political problems growing out of security breaches.

The program is not expected to create a surge in employment at any of the labs

The program marks the first time the military has fielded a nuclear weapon design without an underground test. The last time scientists set off a hydrogen bomb was in 1991 under the Nevada desert.

President Clinton ordered a testing moratorium, and it has been continued by President Bush.

Since the reason for building the new bomb is to maintain confidence in the nation's nuclear deterrent, experts say, the Nuclear Weapons Council will want the most conservative design, which gives Livermore the upper hand.

The design details are secret, but Livermore's version utilizes major components that had been tested — though not produced — for a Navy bomb about two decades ago.

By contrast, Los Alamos selected a design that involved an atomic trigger and a thermonuclear component that had been tested individually.

However, the two elements were never tested together, said Philip Coyle, who serves on scientific advisory committees and formerly was deputy director at Livermore.

The Los Alamos design is said to contain highly attractive features, including innovative mechanisms that would prevent terrorists from detonating the bomb should they gain access to it, experts said. Those use controls were cited by military officials as a key factor in developing the weapon.

Proponents of the effort say that the nation's existing nuclear stockpile is getting old and that doubts will eventually grow about weapons reliability. They say the new bomb will not have a greater nuclear yield and could not perform any new military missions beyond those of existing weapons.

So far, those arguments have attracted bipartisan support, including from Democrats who have long played a leading role in nuclear arms issues.

Critics say the existing stockpile is perfectly reliable and can be maintained for decades. The new bomb will undermine U.S. efforts to stop nuclear proliferation, they say. In addition, a recent study showed that plutonium components in existing weapons were aging much more slowly than expected.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/a...-news-a_section

Hey, we're the United States! We have to make sure that we have the best nukes. That way, pipsqueak nations will know that we mean business when we tell them that they can't make any. tongue.gif
Brains
lol. the us is so full of shit telling everybody else NOT to pursue the technology, while they can't even be bothered themselves.

how intelligent are the people in command there exactly? and how dumb are you chug, posting this victoriously?!

if they really choose to do so, I hope it blows up while it is being built.
Singh400
"Look my dick is bigger"
Man1k3n
*smacks self in head


"I don't know what weapons they will use in World War III, but in World War IV they will use sticks and stones"
---Albert Einstein

Jizzylax
QUOTE(Brains @ Mar 2 2007, 21:42) *

how intelligent are the people in command there exactly? and how dumb are you chug, posting this victoriously?!

if they really choose to do so, I hope it blows up while it is being built.

How dumb are you to not see he was being sarcastic?? blink.gif
Brains
QUOTE(Jizzylax @ Mar 3 2007, 17:53) *

QUOTE(Brains @ Mar 2 2007, 21:42) *

how intelligent are the people in command there exactly? and how dumb are you chug, posting this victoriously?!

if they really choose to do so, I hope it blows up while it is being built.

How dumb are you to not see he was being sarcastic?? blink.gif

i do not think he was jizzy...
Chugworth
QUOTE(Brains @ Mar 4 2007, 02:58) *

QUOTE(Jizzylax @ Mar 3 2007, 17:53) *

QUOTE(Brains @ Mar 2 2007, 21:42) *

how intelligent are the people in command there exactly? and how dumb are you chug, posting this victoriously?!

if they really choose to do so, I hope it blows up while it is being built.

How dumb are you to not see he was being sarcastic?? blink.gif

i do not think he was jizzy...

Oh, I had a bit of sarcasm in the way I said it. But seriously, we need to have the best nukes. We can't just go destroying all of our nukes while other countries are building them up. If there's ever a World War 3, we've got to make sure we come out on top.

Of course, I wish we would invest more in defensive technology, like Reagan's Star Wars system.
Candyman
MAD* part deux.











*For you youngins who missed growing up during the Cold War, Mutual Assured Destruction, or basically being able to blow each other off the face of earth 100 times over is what kept us from blowing each other up in the first place (does that even make sense?!?!) wink2.gif
Phonics Monkey
QUOTE(Candyman @ Mar 4 2007, 19:06) *

MAD* part deux.






*For you youngins who missed growing up during the Cold War, Mutual Assured Destruction, or basically being able to blow each other off the face of earth 100 times over is what kept us from blowing each other up in the first place (does that even make sense?!?!) wink2.gif

Yeah ... Some how vaporizing the planet, just doesn't sound like a "Win" to me either.
Arctirus
QUOTE(Chugworth @ Mar 4 2007, 11:45) *

If there's ever a World War 3, we've got to make sure we come out on top.


No one will come out on top.
K2
QUOTE(Brains @ Mar 3 2007, 03:42) *
how intelligent are the people in command there exactly?
More intelligent then you give them credit for, brains wink2.gif

Actually, how would you act if you have an international treaty that allows you to have nukes, and others don't? Why on earth would you give up that huge advantage?

No, the real issue here is technological development... The time that building a nuclear weapon was something that could be accomplished by investing resources only superpowers had, is gone, and it's gone forever.

So it's no longer a matter of "can you achieve it", but rather "do you feel the need".

Pakistan and India felt the need (i.e. against each other). Iran currently feels the need as well (i.e. wanting to become a regional superpower). And who knows, maybe Saudi-Arabia (sunni) will feel the need after Iran (shia) has it.

And frankly, that is a horror story for everybody in this world. It's one thing when stable superpowers have it, it's a second when regional superpowers get it, but when the technology get's so "easy" that ever single nation with a couple of billion dollars to spend can get them... Yikes!! blink.gif

The USA already HAS them, so no other state will suddenly consider nukes because of this modernization decision. What is worse are new states (again, like Iran) that try to get them... Because that can lead to other nations (enemies of the first state) to get them as well.

Exactly like the neo-conservative domino theory, only this time it's not democracy that is spreading, but nuclear weapons...
Brains
QUOTE(K2 @ Mar 5 2007, 16:26) *

QUOTE(Brains @ Mar 3 2007, 03:42) *
how intelligent are the people in command there exactly?
More intelligent then you give them credit for, brains wink2.gif

lol. yeah. in their frame of mind - I am quite confident they can build up a nice sounding rethoric on how this is all nice and the best for the country. it will be THAT good that people will buy it AND support it.


QUOTE
Actually, how would you act if you have an international treaty that allows you to have nukes, and others don't? Why on earth would you give up that huge advantage?

you wouldn't really huh?! you would do a lot to make sure that others would not get the technology. strangely enough it is not what the US seems to be doing. they seem to WANT others to pursue the technology by attacking neighbouring states; by refusing round table discussion; by plainly insulting them and now by provoking these countries with a "you can't; we can and will."

the real issue here is not the problem of these rogue states, it is our refusal of setting examples!


QUOTE
Exactly like the neo-conservative domino theory, only this time it's not democracy that is spreading, but nuclear weapons...

that theory was failed all along. they did not spread democracy, they spread war. they are well on track of spreading nuclear now as well.

so again: how intelligent are these people?
Singh400
1) Having the biggest nukes solves nothing
2) If your gonna have nukes, everyone needs one to "keep the balance"
3) I can totally see this going off by accident and taking half of the world with it (H bomb is more powerful than the A bomb)
Arctirus
QUOTE(Singh400 @ Mar 6 2007, 06:32) *

3) I can totally see this going off by accident and taking half of the world with it (H bomb is more powerful than the A bomb)


Yeah, let's think about this. Pretty much any modern atomic bomb, at least the ones made by the US and Russia will make the ones that hit Japan look like mouse farts. Do we really need this?
BlueScreenOfDeath
One Word...yes smile.gif If scaring the shit out of people keeps the peace...hell make that bitch as big as it can get
Jizzylax
QUOTE(Singh400 @ Mar 6 2007, 06:32) *

1) Having the biggest nukes solves nothing
2) If your gonna have nukes, everyone needs one to "keep the balance"

Lies!
1) Cold War!
2) Cold War!
Singh400
QUOTE(BlueScreenOfDeath @ Mar 7 2007, 05:51) *

One Word...yes smile.gif If scaring the shit out of people keeps the peace...hell make that bitch as big as it can get

Thats the thing. It won't be used to keep the peace. It'll be used in "my way or the highway" type situation.
Brains
QUOTE(BlueScreenOfDeath @ Mar 7 2007, 06:51) *

One Word...yes smile.gif If scaring the shit out of people keeps the peace...hell make that bitch as big as it can get

laugh.gif

look where "shock and awe" has brought us buddy. wink2.gif

excessive force scares the shit out of people?! keep on dreaming! it brings more of them to extremism...

would you just bow down if your adversary has the bigger weapon? I really doubt that... you'd make sure to up the ante - unless you are smart of course.
Chugworth
QUOTE(Brains @ Mar 7 2007, 17:00) *

QUOTE(BlueScreenOfDeath @ Mar 7 2007, 06:51) *

One Word...yes smile.gif If scaring the shit out of people keeps the peace...hell make that bitch as big as it can get

laugh.gif

look where "shock and awe" has brought us buddy. wink2.gif

excessive force scares the shit out of people?! keep on dreaming! it brings more of them to extremism...

would you just bow down if your adversary has the bigger weapon? I really doubt that... you'd make sure to up the ante - unless you are intelligent of course.

Showing force in Iraq? I'd say that most of this time, we have been showing nothing but weakness. We have been bending over backwards to try and please the media and the liberals, and as a result the terrorists are taking advantage of the situation. The terrorists are no match for our technology. The most powerful weapon they have right now is the media.
Brains
QUOTE(Chugworth @ Mar 7 2007, 23:27) *

QUOTE(Brains @ Mar 7 2007, 17:00) *

QUOTE(BlueScreenOfDeath @ Mar 7 2007, 06:51) *

One Word...yes smile.gif If scaring the shit out of people keeps the peace...hell make that bitch as big as it can get

laugh.gif

look where "shock and awe" has brought us buddy. wink2.gif

excessive force scares the shit out of people?! keep on dreaming! it brings more of them to extremism...

would you just bow down if your adversary has the bigger weapon? I really doubt that... you'd make sure to up the ante - unless you are intelligent of course.

Showing force in Iraq? I'd say that most of this time, we have been showing nothing but weakness. We have been bending over backwards to try and please the media and the liberals, and as a result the terrorists are taking advantage of the situation. The terrorists are no match for our technology. The most powerful weapon they have right now is the media.

mouhahaha! laugh.gif

while i can agree with you that media are powerful - and don't go far: just look at all the false pretexts for the Iraq war which have been sold to you guys (and up to this moment still to some of you guys) - your blaming of the media is ridiculous.

if you say "please the media", surely the sensational "shock and awe" campaign fits in nicely. So does the Fallujah attack back in 2004. Or Saddam's capture. Or "MOAB" (remember MOAB in May 2003?). Or the toppling of Saddam's statue - where the American flag was quickly undressed again since it was not a victory for the Americans, but for the Iraqis... or what was the idea?! Or the finding guilty of Abu Graib soldiers while reports of abuse are still living. Or Star Wars... or what not.


haha. you are cracking me up saying that this is the media's fault or the liberal's.

sure. kiloton per kiloton, the "terrorists" are no match for Your Technology (should I bow down in awe I wonder and embrace it like the Second Coming?! ermm.gif ).

Unfortunately, technology does not seem to be a match for determination of individual renegade groups driven to extremes.

Makes me wonder how intelligent your decision makers are really... still. noexpression.gif
Arctirus
QUOTE(BlueScreenOfDeath @ Mar 7 2007, 00:51) *

One Word...yes smile.gif If scaring the shit out of people keeps the peace...hell make that bitch as big as it can get


And of course WE will be the only ones with such weapons and there will be no arms race for others to run with us. Didn't we already go through this before, just spending and spending until some country spends themselves to poverty and the other is somehow the winner?
BlueScreenOfDeath
QUOTE(Brains @ Mar 7 2007, 16:00) *

QUOTE(BlueScreenOfDeath @ Mar 7 2007, 06:51) *

One Word...yes smile.gif If scaring the shit out of people keeps the peace...hell make that bitch as big as it can get

laugh.gif

look where "shock and awe" has brought us buddy. wink2.gif

excessive force scares the shit out of people?! keep on dreaming! it brings more of them to extremism...

would you just bow down if your adversary has the bigger weapon? I really doubt that... you'd make sure to up the ante - unless you are smart of course.


if that weapon had the power to wipe my country completely off the planet...probably lol. Shock and Awe... lol was a joke lol there was no shock and it was a yawn. We could have done better,
Arctirus
QUOTE(BlueScreenOfDeath @ Mar 7 2007, 23:47) *

if that weapon had the power to wipe my country completely off the planet...probably lol. Shock and Awe... lol was a joke lol there was no shock and it was a yawn. We could have done better,


Just out of curiosity are you old enough to remember Soviet Russia?
Brains
QUOTE(BlueScreenOfDeath @ Mar 8 2007, 05:47) *

if that weapon had the power to wipe my country completely off the planet...probably lol. Shock and Awe... lol was a joke lol there was no shock and it was a yawn. We could have done better,

you sound like my son. he is 6 now.

you could have done better indeed. by not going in for example. what were the reasons again?

WMD?
Stability in the region?
Getting rid of a madman (and creating some more instead)?
Peace for the Iraqis?

oh surely it must be the link to Al Quaeda which did not exist then, but most likely does now?

really. I am intrigued... how exactly could you have done better in your expert opinion?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.