Do WE Need NEW Nukes??

[Bonnie]

Nuclear Options
Do we need new nukes?
By Fred Kaplan

Back on the horizon

The nuclear gurus are staging a comeback. Their wedge of opportunity is a technical debate that's emerged inside the weapons labs, a debate so arcane that probably only a few hundred scientists can engage its issues fully. Yet the outcome of this debate could zap new jolts of life into a vast nuclear complex—of strategic thinking, nuclear testing, warhead production, and missile deployment—that's lain moribund for more than a decade.

The spark of all this is a nuclear warhead called the W-76, the hydrogen bomb packed inside roughly 3,300 of the United States' 5,000 or so strategic nuclear weapons. Eight of them are packed inside every Trident I and Trident II missile, which are loaded into the U.S. Navy's fleet of submarines that roams the oceans, under the surface, undetectable and therefore invulnerable to pre-emptive attack. In short, the W-76 is the mainstay of America's nuclear deterrent.

When the W-76s came into the arsenal between 1972 and 1987, they were expected to have a 20-year lifespan. Most of the warheads have long passed that expiration date, and the remaining few are approaching it. So, this is the question: Is the W-76 literally obsolete? Does it work anymore? If the president pushed the button, would these bombs explode? If it seems very likely that they wouldn't, should we build a new warhead? And if we go that far, should we test it to make sure it works—that is, explode it underground and, in the process, break the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the United States signed in 1995 and started observing under the first President Bush in '92? (Every country in the world except India, Pakistan, and North Korea has signed it, though the United States and China haven't ratified it.) And as long as we're building and testing a new warhead, should we simply go with a remodeled W-76—or design something new for the post-Cold War era?

http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2116692/

 

[NATO AIR]

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.

 

[Gem]

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.

 

[Annie]

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:

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."

 

[Comrade]

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?

 

[Mr. P]

I'd say go with new W-76 warheads. We know they work so testing would not
be necessary.

Gem, As far as...

are you comfortable knowing that our Nuclear Launch Control Facilities used computer technology that makes an Apple IIe look complex?

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).

 

[padisha emperor]

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 ?

 

[Annie]

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.

 

[MissileMan]

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?

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.

 

[MissileMan]

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).

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.