Do you think it's a good idea for the US to add new nuclear weapons to our arsenal?

Question

WASHINGTON: The Bush administration is expected to announce this week a major step forward in the building of the country's first new nuclear warhead in nearly two decades. It will propose combining elements of competing designs from two weapons laboratories in an approach that some experts argue is untested and risky.

This was first reported in 2003. It's now coming to fruition.

At the same time, the nation's nuclear lab chief, Linton Brooks, a former ambassador and arms-control negotiator was asked to resign...

Another article states that Congress has no authority to change course in the war by cutting funding. The president in fact has complete authority as Commander-in-Chief...

This scares me-it seems like the Cold War never ended...

Answer 1

Under the treaty with Soviets both sides agreed to reduce size of arsenal and left in place a replacemetn article.
This only aplied to missle technology, not tactical nukes for battlefield conditions.
Teh recent trade agreement with India, a non sighner of nuke conventions was because they have advanced far beupnd even the uS in small tactical nuclear explosives.
In the US and Israel there are speacial ops whose only mission is to use these type nukes.
That someday the US will use such weaponry is a certainty, if they have not already done so, especially the so called high radiation low damage types.
Todfays technology allows replacing old larger warheads that eld say 5 nukes too now hold at least twice as many with more than doubling the destructive power in each nuke.
Replacing 20 olds try more like replacing 40 year old.
The last stage of US military political warfare, so caled LICor LIW limited Intensity Conflicts (warfare)calls for unlimited responce to our strategic needs and does indeed include nukes.
Why? Just look at some of the answers and see the same mentality in the leaders of country.
Scary stuff!

Answer 2

I agree it is not a good idea. It seems to me that an existing capability to totally anhialate any other country should be sufficient, particularly since use of that capability on any other nuclear super power such as Russia or China would effectively mean that the USA was committing mass suicide as well as murder.

Surely the taxpayers must prefer to stop spending fortunes on weaponry which no one should have or use and instead spend those huge amounts of money on the quality of life for American tax payers.

Instead of the USA pontificating about other small nations such as N Korea and Iran developing nuclear capability vastly inferior to that which the USA already has, they should be negotiating total international nuclear disarmament, policed by the UN, not by America and with the UN taking the dominant role as the ultimate deterent from agreesion and meddling in other countries affairs with all such agreements applying equally to the USA as well as everyone else.

You already are the richest country in the world. Why do you need to persist in threatening and interferring with all other less fortunate countries?

Answer 3

Bush & Co. Himself, and the whole Idea of more weopons to Erase Every Living thing from the Face of this Earth, is nothing other than INSANELY SICK. Now, that said, Isn't it COMFORTING that A Member of SKULL and BONES SOCIETY, whos Only Alliegance is to Lucifer Himself, has his Finger on The Button?? These Self Serving Madmen are Dreaming of Global Dominance... It is ALL So VERY SICK

Answer 4

If we are building new warheads to replace old ones which are twenty-five or thirty years old, I have no problem with this. It seems to be that there would be no reason for the United States to expand its current nuclear arsenal, although we may wish to replace some older outdated warheads with newer ones.

Answer 5

Even a war monger like me can't see any sense in this.We all ready have enough such weapons to kill everyone on the planet.
Unless those things have a 20 year shelf life or something,i see no reason for it.

Answer 6

Because we will then destroy you with our nuclear weapons. Its a MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) world we live in. No one can win a nuclear war.

Answer 7

It's an equipment upgrade from 20 year old technology to state of the art technology and the new ones are safer, so get over it.

Answer 8

like updating technology, better targeting and safety features. older casings and older materials being replaced.... it needs to be done.