U.S. Selecting Hybrid Design for Warheads

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.

Skip to next paragraph 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...................

Where the heck did I write that nuclear technology hasn't evolved since '45. What I meant to imply, however inartfully, was that we have accumulated enough new knowledge in both the technology and delivery that we shouldn't be undertaking massive new expenditures with those that are yet unproven, and at exhorbitant cost.

You have said many conflicting things on this thread. You also have admitted to having no expertise on nuclear weapon technology yet you don't believe the people in charge of our nuclear arsenal. $100 billion is not "massive" in a 2 and one half trillion dollar annual budget and on what do you base your statement about "exhorbitant" costs? We spend billions just maintaining our current aresenal and the costs go up as the stockpile continues to age.

Technical considerations aside, what you fail to appreciate is that our National Debt is such that foreign countries, a prime source of U.S. investment, are starting to dump their U.S. currency in favor of the Euro which will ultimately lead to a collapse in the value of the dollar, regardless of whether or not we can get deficit spending under control as promised.

Foreign investment isn't bad and it is a two-edge sword. Almost half of our nearly $9 trillion national debt is in the form of "intragovernmental holdings," i.e., the SS Trust Fund and other similar trust funds, which are really unfunded liabilities. I would be far more concerned about the reform of our entitlement programs like SS, which has an unfunded liability of $13 trillion and Medicare, which is in worse shape, than the fall of the dollar. The SS "surplus" starts decllining in 2008 and we will be paying out more than we are taking in in 2017.

Surely, if the Republicans learned nothing from the results of the last election, they should have learned that this should be an integral part of the calculus before taking on new debt.

Taking on what new debt? The $100 million to maintain our nuclear arsenal?

I am concerned about all national debt, regardless of flavor.

"Taking on what new debt? The $100 million to maintain our nuclear arsenal?"

No, taking on a new 100 billion dollar debt for an unproven program.

As to perceived inconsistencies in my statements, it is because you have either misrepresented them or taken them out of context.

Look, I am an unrepentent populist. The problems in this country are so massive and largely ignored because of inadequate funding, that taking on massive new expenditures is really a concern to me as it should be to any thinking person.

Mercifully, we have a robust economy, yet the problems worsen. Why? Because we tend to piss the money away on B.S. programs that benefit a few oligarchs, or paying interest on a bloated debt, as opposed to using the money wisely like guarding our borders or improving the educational system.

As to perceived inconsistencies in my statements, it is because you have either misrepresented them or taken them out of context.

First you lament spending money on weapon's systems we will never use, i.e., nuclear weapons. Then, you decry the plans to modernize our aging nuclear arsenal and want us to use "proven technology" even though you have no idea what you are talking about from a technical standpoint. Finally, you want our political leadership to grow a pair like HST and use nuclear weapons. You are madder than a March hare.

$100 billion is not a massive new expenditure, especially as it is spaced over a number of years, "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 status quo is not an option and we have no idea what it would cost following your prescription. We are already spending around $4 billion a year maintain the current arsenal.

Almost half of the budget is being spent on entitlement programs. Social Security pays more than $450 billion in benefits each year. If nothing is done, by 2060, the combination of Social Security and Medicare will account for more than 71 percent of the federal budget. Defense spending is about 20%, which is equal to about the rest of the world combined. Servicing the national debt costs 17 cents out of every dollar of revenue collected. I don't want the federal government spending more money on education, but rather, less.

Unless we get the entitlement programs under control, we are headed for a train wreck.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.