Worried that the nation's aging nuclear arsenal is increasingly fragile, American scientists have begun designing a new generation of nuclear arms meant to be sturdier and more reliable and to have longer lives Of course the New York Slimes fails to mention that their pal BJ Klintoon did absolutely nothing to maintain our vital weapons programs.
1 posted on
02/06/2005 6:35:20 PM PST by
wagglebee
To: wagglebee
No! He outsourced that job to China.
2 posted on
02/06/2005 6:40:38 PM PST by
dgallo51
(DEMAND IMMEDIATE, OPEN INVESTIGATIONS OF U.S. COMPLICITY IN RWANDAN GENOCIDE!)
To: wagglebee
Some critics say checking the reliability of the new designs is likely to require underground testing, violating the ban and inviting other nations to do the same, thereby endangering American security.
Am I the only one here who wonders whether these unnamed "critics" really exist?
4 posted on
02/06/2005 6:43:04 PM PST by
Logophile
To: wagglebee
I'm betting that this is a subtle way of saying that everybody has our designs so we are starting over with better security this time.
5 posted on
02/06/2005 6:43:55 PM PST by
Thebaddog
(Dawgs off the coffee table.)
To: wagglebee
If Kerry had won and the leftist dims had their way America would have been disarmed by the slow corrosion of our nuke arsenal....unilateral disarmament by neglect.
6 posted on
02/06/2005 6:44:03 PM PST by
darth
To: wagglebee
Asked about a possible attack by the United States or Israel, which have both said a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable, Rohani said: "If such an attack (against Iran's atomic facilities) takes place then of course we will retaliate and we will definitely accelerate our activities to complete our (nuclear) fuel cycle." Speaking in a rare interview, Rohani said Iran's ability to produce its own nuclear parts had made it "invulnerable" to attack since it could simply rebuild whatever was destroyed.
8 posted on
02/06/2005 6:45:52 PM PST by
granite
(WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ?)
To: wagglebee
But critics say it could needlessly resuscitate the complex of factories and laboratories that make nuclear weapons and could possibly ignite a new arms race.
Screw the critics, they don't know s--t from shinola, and in that same spirit, maybe they could explain just WHO they think is going to engage in a 'new arms race' with the United States? Who has the military industrial base to do this effectively and actually compete with us?
As for spending only 9 million on modernization of our nuclear arsenal? Holy smokes, make it 9 BILLION and do it all, and do it right!
To: wagglebee
got news for the critics: there already IS a new arms race going.
11 posted on
02/06/2005 6:50:31 PM PST by
King Prout
(Remember John Adam!)
To: wagglebee
12 posted on
02/06/2005 7:10:51 PM PST by
BCrago66
To: wagglebee
TEHRAN (Reuters) - "But I do not think the United States itself will take such a risk ... They know our capabilities for retaliating against such attacks," the mid-ranking cleric added. |
14 posted on
02/06/2005 7:25:35 PM PST by
granite
(WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ?)
To: wagglebee
You mean Poor old Slim Pickens coulda been riding a dud?
17 posted on
02/06/2005 7:31:53 PM PST by
mad_as_he$$
(Never corner anything meaner than you. NSDQ)
To: wagglebee
[Experts say a costly federal program to assess and maintain their health cannot ultimately confirm their reliability because a global test ban forbids underground test detonations.]
I can think of another way to test them.
To: wagglebee
"...critics say it could needlessly resuscitate the complex of factories and laboratories that make nuclear weapons and could possibly ignite a new arms race."Between us and who?
Cuba?
Canuckistan?
Ireland?
19 posted on
02/06/2005 8:02:08 PM PST by
Redbob
To: wagglebee
So the expected lifetime was 15 years, and most of them are older than 20 years. Should I be more worried than I am? I was under the assumption they are indeed quite old, but will still do the job if asked.
Question: This expected 15 year lifespan, is this in reference to the wear and aging of the overall mechanicl and electronic components of the weapon, or the nuclear decay of the isotopes cores themselves? (i.e. the Pu-241 pits, etc?)
Is there a chance our weapons may fizzle if used due to the fact that the core metals have decayed into other elements, or will we just get a much lower yield?
Any experts out there?
Bones
20 posted on
02/06/2005 8:05:08 PM PST by
Bones75
To: wagglebee
To: wagglebee
And the democrats always fail that it was a democrat who developed the Nuclear bomb (Manhattan project) and a democrat who dropped not one but two nuclear bombs on civilians causing a lot of "collateral damage".
I always like to remind them of those two facts.
30 posted on
02/06/2005 10:31:23 PM PST by
Coleus
(Oppose Amnesty for Illegal Aliens http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1335643/posts)
To: wagglebee
Klintoon. Worst president ever. I am against ANY AND ALL U.S. nuclear disarmament or signing treaties like the START series. We need to have the biggest, baddest, planet-destroying arsenal we can. It is ultimatly the only way to stay free.
32 posted on
02/07/2005 12:19:28 AM PST by
Paul_Denton
(The UN is UN-American! Get the UN out of the US and US out of the UN!)
To: wagglebee
If credible, this makes us the new emperor with no clothes...
35 posted on
02/07/2005 1:48:25 AM PST by
Lexinom
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson