Becuase Everything Else Sucks

US Develops New Sea-Based Nuclear Warheads

By Manila Ryce
Published Saturday, March 3rd, 2007, 4:42 am
Filed under: Genocide, World: Asia, Science and Technology, War, Society/Culture, World Issues, US Politics

The United States possesses three types of Weapons of Mass Destruction: chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons. The unsettling abundance of the latter has urged other non-nuclear nations to strive towards obtaining their own, crushing the theory that large nuclear stockpiles work as a deterrent. Still, in 2003 the Bush administration rejected a Russian proposal to reduce the nuclear stockpiles of both nations to 1,500 each. Instead, they decided to research the development of smaller nuclear weapons. In 2004, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists listed about 7,000 operational and 3,000 reserve warheads in the hands of the US government. With no plans for true nuclear disarmament, it’s likely that the current US stockpile figure is higher than the 2004 figure.

The United States has recently selected a design for a new generation of nuclear warheads, made for the nation’s sea-based arsenal. The department of energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) insists that the new nuclear warheads will not increase the US army’s stockpile, but will replace aging warheads. After congressional approval, the new warheads will be produced under the direction of the US Navy.

The Bush administration is currently wagging a finger at North Korea for their nuclear weapons program and planning an attack against Iran for their nuclear energy program. This hypocrisy is amplified by history when you consider that the United States is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons during war, primarily against civilians. John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, said, “When the US says we’re going to build new nuclear weapons, and we go to Iran and say you cant have nuclear weapons at all, that is just going to be one more reason why the folks in Iran … are going to dismiss it as US hypocrisy.”

The NNSA has a 2008 budget of $88 million for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. One of the goals of the program is to “render unauthorized use of weapons impossible”. The new design reportedly includes a device to lock a weapon’s nuclear element so it cannot be used by an enemy. Isn’t it reassuring to know that nuclear genocide will only be delivered once more by American hands?

source

Related Posts

3 Responses to “US Develops New Sea-Based Nuclear Warheads”

  1. You all really need a clue. Arab nations are trying to get nukes so that they can be more intimidating. It makes no difference to them if we have more or less than we did under clinton. it just hurts how clueless you liberals really are. do you think if we had only 1000 nukes that iran or korea would give up their effort? we would still be a nuclear power, and they would still want to be one too.

    brad
    08/5/07 at 7:48 pm

  2. John, your America-hating liberal bias is becoming as apparent as your lack of knowledge in the matters that you comment upon.

    You dismiss the FACT that these weapons do not add to the arsenal, perhaps because you have no concept of the amount of maintenance and replacement activity involved in maintaining it. If we did nothing at all, the operational arsenal would be quickly depleted.

    You dismiss the FACT that as with all recent designs, this new one reduces maintenance requirements and improves safety. Therefore, objecting to the new designs is objecting to improved nuclear safety. That’s a well-thought-out liberal position.

    You conclude with a snide remark that attempts to draw moral equivalence between the US and such other moral stalwarts as Imperial Japan and Iran. Typical. After all, what does morality have to do with liberalism?

    You seem to think that the US was utterly immoral in using the bomb to defeat Japan. Was it more immoral than the conventional bombs that killed far more Japanese? Unless you are claiming some strange moral difference based on the technology, I would guess your answer is, “No”. Therefore, you must be saying that defeating the Japanese was immoral – period. How very liberal of you.

    Kyle
    08/7/07 at 11:06 am

  3. Kyle, you forgot to add anti-Semitic alongside your anti-American accusation as I’ve also categorized Israel as a terrorist state.

    The replacement of aging weapons is mentioned in the story, and yes it is dismissed for two main reason. First, it takes focus away from the fact that this administration is not only replacing aged weapons with newer technology, but building our nuclear arsenal in the process. And second, nuclear replacement is not disarmament. Even maintaining our current number would be an immoral action. As for the bombing of Japanese civilians being immoral, I’ll take McNamara’s analysis of its necessity over yours if you don’t mind.

    Manila Ryce
    08/8/07 at 12:04 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.