Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Bonnie, Apr 16, 2005.
Do we need new nukes?
By Fred Kaplan
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.
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.
I've used this site before for my students:
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."
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:
We spent how many billions to develope the Peacekeeper?
I'd say go with new W-76 warheads. We know they work so testing would not
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).
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...
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.