Do WE Need NEW Nukes??

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Bonnie, Apr 16, 2005.

  1. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    Nuclear Options
    Do we need new nukes?
    By Fred Kaplan


    http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2116692/
     
  2. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    Yea, that wasn't bad from a blowhard like Fred Kaplan (and yes, in my dumber days I used to post his articles like they were "informed" analysis), he actually writes a decent article there, so I blogged it yesterday.

    I think we do need new nukes, if anything because sadly, we have to keep up with the Chinas and Russias of the world.
     
  3. Gem
    Offline

    Gem BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,080
    Thanks Received:
    782
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +782
    I suppose its just a question of what you want the United States Military to be capable of doing. For instance, are you comfortable knowing that our Nuclear Launch Control Facilities used computer technology that makes an Apple IIe look complex? Or that we recently sold the United Arab Emirates our plans for building our most high tech fighter jets?

    People hear about the military building more nukes or how big the budget is (although it is smaller than the education budget) and think it is unreasonable...for me, it is more a simple instinct of wanting the nation with the most state of the art methods for protection and warfare to be my nation and not someone elses.
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I've used this site before for my students:

    http://www.thisnation.com/question/037.html

    It explains WHY and HOW better than many I've seen. I think that one readily see one reason WHY in the current situation, "to hamstring the majority".

    It's one of those protections against, which can be misused, "tyranny of the majority."
     
  5. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    I'm pretty dissapointed to see were ditching the 50 Peacekeeper missiles, the only nuclear package produced since the 70's. In any future limited nuclear exchange, accuracy will be paramount in order to limit needless casualities and fallout.

    Here's an interesting chart of US missile tech to date:

    [​IMG]

    We spent how many billions to develope the Peacekeeper?
     
  6. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +620
    I'd say go with new W-76 warheads. We know they work so testing would not
    be necessary.

    Gem, As far as...
    Yes, for the most part I am, although I admit I have no knowledge of the system. Personally, I want as much human involvement in a potential
    launch as there can be, it's not what I want machines to control. I am reminded of a movie (I don't recall the title) where a kid (hacker) starts a game of chess with a launch control puter which in turn started a game of Global Thermonuclear warfare.
    Is it possible for technology to be so complex that we (the user) don't know what it's doing nor how to control it? I think so. So when it comes to a nuclear launch, I say...KISS..(Keep it simple stupid).
     
  7. padisha emperor
    Offline

    padisha emperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,564
    Thanks Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Aix-en-Provence, France
    Ratings:
    +53
    Sur, the probablility of a nuclear conflict today is so high. Every morning I'm surprised because Aix-en-Provence has not been destroyed by a nucelar weapon...
    :rolleyes:

    I understand that USA want to have more recent missiles, to remplace the old ones.
    But when I hear people who justify this programm with the reason of the chinese and russian threat....Cold War is over, Germany is one, the wall of Berlin has fallen....

    USa are critisizing rance becaue w've done nuclear tries in the Pacific during the 1990's.
    And then, USA would probably do it too....

    Amazing, uh ?
     
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Setting aside the nuke question for now, where have you been? Russia as an immediate threat? No, I agree. China, short and possible long term threat to US interests, for sure. Perhaps most importantly, if your government has its way, there could quickly become a Cold War problem for the US and Europe.
     
  9. MissileMan
    Offline

    MissileMan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,939
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +223
    The accuracy of the Minuteman III is more than sufficient to get the job done. The move to phase out the Peacekeepers makes sense logistically. All that money being spent to maintain spare parts, etc for just 50 missiles, can be spent to add more spare parts for the rest of our ICBM force.

    As far as the warhead issue, we don't have to redesign from scratch and test new warheads, only build new ones with existing plans. I don't see a problem.
     
  10. MissileMan
    Offline

    MissileMan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,939
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +223
    You are absolutely right...there's no need to put a Cray computer in cash register. There is a limited functionality to what comes in and goes out of an LCC. While simple by today's standards, the equipment was designed specifically for it's one purpose, with no frills.
     

Share This Page