BBC: New nuclear warhead design for US ~ Leftists appeasers are saddened...

BBC ^ | Friday, 2 March 2007, 23:15 GMT | Jamie Coomarasamy BBC News, Washington

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

New nuclear warhead design for US

By Jamie Coomarasamy BBC News, Washington

The new warheads could be used in Trident missiles on submarines

The Bush administration has selected the design for America's first new nuclear warhead in nearly two decades.

US officials say the warhead will not add to the country's nuclear arsenal, but will replace existing missiles.

Critics, though, argue this sends the wrong signal at a time when the White House is leading efforts to curb Iran and North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

The chosen design was developed in a Californian laboratory and is based on a warhead already tested in the 1980s.

That will satisfy the US Congress, which signed off on the idea of a new warhead on the basis that there would not be any fresh missile tests.

Senior US officials, meanwhile, are stressing that this is not the start of a new arms race.

They say the warheads will simply replace older, less reliable ones with a safer version that is due to be operational in five years' time.

[tet68]

Dec,1, 1941

Press release.

US. to use new torpedo design.
"More reliable" say experts.
No testing will be done so as not to spur "arms race" with
Japan.

[Candor7]

Critics, though, argue this sends the wrong signal at a time when the White House is leading efforts to curb Iran and North Korea's nuclear ambitions.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Liberal platitudes.

Throughout the History of our nation, peace has only been achieved through strength. That is the message that needs sending, not one of weakness as the Eurolibs think.

Don't these appeasing whackos study their History of pre WWII Europe? What a collection of diconnected pussy fodder.

[gcruse]

"They say the warheads will simply replace older, less reliable ones with a safer version"

Is Jocelyn Elders in the running for Surgeon General again?

[gcruse]

"peace has only been achieved through strength.'

so... Iran and North Korea need to be strong, too, right? It's for peace.

[buccaneer81]

Dec,1, 1941 Press release. US. to use new torpedo design.

Ironically, during the first two years of the Pacific war, hundreds, if not thousands of our torpedoes were duds.

[buccaneer81]

Sorry, missed the irony and sarcasm. You are spot on.

[doc1019]

How do we know that the old bombs still work? We should try one or two out on Iran just to make sure that our stockpiles of weapons are still viable.

If we are squeamish about this idea (and I am), than invite the pres. of Iran (and any others with doubts (Kim Ill comes to mind) to observe a test some place safe (desert Island, open ocean … someplace) and let him witness the explosion of one of these little bombs. Might give them pause.

[gcruse]

I just read about that a few weeks ago. One submarine sortie came back having fired all its fish at the Japs and every one of them was a dud. It must have sucked.

[buccaneer81]

It must have sucked.

No doubt. Especially if the guy you thought you were gonna kill came back and tried to kill you.

[Enchante]

That was one awful torpedo, which should have proved forever the great perils of insufficient testing of a weapon before deployment (damn, that was FDR's navy, I guess he should have been impeached!!):

http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/naval_weaponry/3037866.html?featured=y&c=y

[PreciousLiberty]

Here's what kills me. Nuclear weapons have _saved_ countless lives! Why else have there been no more World Wars? It certainly isn't because of a fundamental change in human nature. Not to mention that the only use of them, in WW II, saved millions of lives.

Yet, the pacifists call for a "world with no more nuclear weapons". It won't ever happen as long as the various governments in the club are responsible and choose to defend themselves. Aggression for ideology, land or resources is a temptation for many nations, nuclear retaliation is the only thing that's keeping it from happening.

The pacifists should favor a strong nuclear arsenal. ;-)

The worse thing is that (IMO) there are more serious threats than nuclear weapons, for instance bioweapons. Proliferation of WMD class bioweapons seems unavoidable.

The upside is that telecommuting will blossom.

[2ndDivisionVet]

What many don't know is that nuclear warheads are only good for so many years, then must be replaced to be effective. Any physicists here that can explain further?

[grey_whiskers]

The fissile material is radioactive. For the heavy elements this means a constant weak flux of neutrons coming from the warhead material, which can affect other components of the bomb.

There may be issues with chemical aging of the explosives or electronic components; tritium which is used in hydrogen bombs can decay, forming various other moieties which actually retard the thermonuclear reactions: and the temperature and pressure inside a thermonuclear warhead, tho' very high, are still not enough to emulate a red giant star and fuse other elements into Carbon...

Cheers!

[Spirochete]

The Chinese already have this design. Their military moles have free run of Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"so... Iran and North Korea need to be strong, too, right? It's for peace."

Yup. Totalitarianism threatens the free world. Liberty threatens Totalitariansm. Therefore they need weapons to protect their way of life from countries that seek to liberate their people from a life of servitude and poverty.

[MrBambaLaMamba]

The US has had nuclear weapons since 1945.

The fact that they have not been used to destroy, subjugate or oppress the whiner nations and their champions refutes the whiners and their champions.

[JSteff]

"hundreds, if not thousands of our torpedoes were duds"

... and cost hundreds, if not thousands of lives of our submariners. Meanwhile the Japaneses "long lance" torpedo had a terrific range that was about 3 times the U.S. torpedoes. It also had a larger war head than our torpedoes.

The Japanese had no qualms about testing which had begun in the 1930's.

[Cheburashka]

I just read about that a few weeks ago. One submarine sortie came back having fired all its fish at the Japs and every one of them was a dud. It must have sucked.
---
What really sucked was having the bureaucrats say, "There's nothing wrong with our government-designed-and-made torpedoes, you stupid sailors are mistreating them, that's the only possible way there could be problems."

Then around the end of 1942 the bureaucrats actually decided to do some actual tests on their perfect torpedoes and finally figured out they weren't perfect.

So after a year the submariners got vindicated, and soon thereafter got torpedoes that actually worked. Which didn't help if you died under a depth-charging brought on by firing defective torpedoes at Japanese ships before then.

[sevenbak]

I'm kind of worried about this. The article says the new design will eventually replace the entire US arsenal. And they have never been tested!!