U.S. Selecting Hybrid Design for Warheads

New York Times ^ | January 7, 2007 | WILLIAM J. BROAD, DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER

[infocats]

What the hell is the point of developing these fancy nuclear weapons when obviously, we don't have the will to use them.

In spite of the clear and present nuclear threats from North Korea, and Iran, have we used our nuclear capabilities? NO!

In spite of the fact that we could have easily beaten North Vietnam or quelled the insurgency in Iraq, have we done so? NO!

Are we any longer in an arms race with either the Soviets or China? NO! We now prefer to exert pressure [ rightly or wrongly ] both diplomatically and economically.

So my question then becomes, in a time of economic extremis with record defecits, why throw good money down a rathole with our health care, public schools, social security system, borders, outsourcing, and public morality in dysfunctional chaos?

[RobinOfKingston]

What the hell is the point of developing these fancy nuclear weapons when obviously, we don't have the will to use them.

Nuclear weapons are the fig leaf that enable our politicians and "leaders" (hahahahahahaha) to continue pretending to be tough.

[infocats]

Yeah...on our hard earned tax dollars!

[elfman2]

"the overall bill estimated at more than $100 billion"

Much sexier than spending $100 billion for another Marine Expeditionary Force. And MEF makers don't have teams of lobbyists with gold cards.

[Right Wing Assault]

The Times is slipping here. They should have detailed diagrams of the competing designs and full plans on how to produce each one. Also, a list of places to purchase all appropriate materials and equipment and a list of experts for hire.

Anything less than this is total failure for the NYT.

[JudgemAll]

Well, I am sure down the line some folkes could make good use of those nukes, and that is the whole point... and even if we are using those as an excuse to not fight the enemy, let us not find excuses to not have a large and robust nuke arsenal either....

[Oldexpat]

Does anyone know whether we have a bunker buster nuc and/or a neutron nuc in our inventory?
It seems that what we will need to go after Iran and other potential enemies are specialized nuc weapons. I hope we have them.

[SunTzuWu]

So my question then becomes, in a time of economic extremis with record defecits, why throw good money down a rathole with our health care, public schools, social security system, borders, outsourcing, and public morality in dysfunctional chaos?

You've bought the RAT talking points hook, line and sinker. I'll bet you were one of those "Republicans" who taught us a "lesson" last election.

[Thermalseeker]

Are we any longer in an arms race with either the Soviets or China? NO!

Soviets? No. Russia? Yes. The cold war isn't over, it's just in an "operational pause"...to think otherwise is folly.

[infocats]

I am an independent Conservative who doesn't buy into anyone's B.S. talking points { as apparently you have ] but prefers to use the good mind that God saw fit to give me.

[infocats]

My point wasn't that we don't live in an extremely dangerous world, or that we should let our guard down for one microsecond, but rather that we should expend scarce resources in a direction that we are willing to use...as opposed to not use.

[infocats]

My point wasn't that we don't live in an extremely dangerous world, or that we should let our guard down for one microsecond, but rather that we should expend scarce resources in a direction that we are willing to use...as opposed to not use.

[kabar]

What the hell is the point of developing these fancy nuclear weapons when obviously, we don't have the will to use them.

Nuclear weapons are first and foremost a deterrent. They are the last resort.

So my question then becomes, in a time of economic extremis with record defecits, why throw good money down a rathole with our health care, public schools, social security system, borders, outsourcing, and public morality in dysfunctional chaos?

Are you proposing that we dismantle our aging nuclear arsenal, which is expensive to maintain and must eventually be replaced? What's your point? Do you have the scientific expertise to opine that it is throwing "good money down a rathole?"

[infocats]

Perhaps you haven't given them enough time ;-)

[infocats]

You've got that exactly right! This is just another taxpayer ripoff to benefit the oligarchs...with little to no benefit to the average Joe [ or Jane ].

[infocats]

Yes, I seem to have noticed what a powerful deterrent our nukes were to Al-Qaeda on 9/11. What I am proposing is that we build weapons that we are willing to use...as opposed to not use. Although I am an electrical engineer with no particular expertise in nuclear weapons technology, that doesn't imply that I have to check my common sense at the door.

[null and void]

Does anyone know whether we have a bunker buster nuc and/or a neutron nuc in our inventory?

No, and no.

OTOH, this one is "meant to be sturdier, more reliable" read that as bunker buster...

[Right Wing Assault]

Perhaps you haven't given them enough time ;-)

You're right. This is likely just installment 1 of a ten part series.

[Doe Eyes]

Yeah...on our hard earned tax dollars!

Not to worry. You won't pay a dime.

Borrow and spend is the policy.

[null and void]

Nuclear weapons are first and foremost a deterrent.

That only works as long as there is some uncertainty as to whether we have the will to actually use them occasionally.

Once an opponent is convinced we never will, they have no deterrent effect.