Is A New Hydrogen Bomb as Planned by the Bush administration justified? Is this necessary?

Question

March 8, 2007
AP: New US Bomb Could Jumpstart Nuclear Arms Race

A U.S. plan to develop a new hydrogen bomb could spark production of new nuclear weapons by other countries, including several foes of the Bush administration, warn some of the nation's leading arms control and disarmament advocacy groups.

Last Friday, the Department of Energy announced it was seeking to develop a new hydrogen bomb that would replace the existing W76 warhead now deployed on submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

Many analysts say the Bush administration's plan would undermine international efforts to control the spread of nuclear arms and would provide justification to those countries currently suspected of trying to build such weapons.

"The administration claims [it] is necessary in order to maintain long-term confidence in the future stockpile," says John Isaacs, "but the fact is that the U.S. stockpile has been confirmed 'safe and reliable' for at least another half century."

Despite the end of the Cold War in 1991, the United States continues to possess thousands of nuclear weapons. In addition to the United States, other major powers that have built huge nuclear arsenals include Russia, Britain, France, and China.

Currently the five countries combined have more than 36,000 nuclear warheads in their possession, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), a Sweden-based think tank.

In addition to the declared nuclear powers, India, Pakistan, and Israel are also believed to be in possession of hundreds of nuclear weapons and at this point, unlike Iran, which has joined international agreements against the spread of nuclear weapons, none of them seems willing to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Go to google: Type in "Find Department of Energy plans for hydrogen bomb," search and find several sources. Scroll and see specifically,
"Department of Energy News"

Answer 1

Not only is it NOT justified and NOT necessary, it also puts us in violation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty:

Article VI and the preamble indicate that the NWS parties pursue plans to reduce and liquidate their stockpiles; Article VI also calls for "...a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

In other words, we are not complying with the disarmament pillar of the NPT so where do we get off pointing the finger at other countries who may or MAY NOT be in violation when we are in clear violation?

The hypocrisy is mind boggling.

Answer 2

Israel are also believed to be in possession of hundreds of nuclear weapons and at this point, unlike Iran, which has joined international agreements against the spread of nuclear weapons, Isreal NEVER join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.But yet has alot of WMD.

Answer 3

Technically, this will result in a unilateral reduction of the total inventory. The weapons will be safer than what currently exists and much more resistant to outside control, thereby eliminating, or at least vastly reducing, the likelihood of falling into the wrong hands.

You did notice the phrase "replace the existing W76 warhead" in your question, didn't you? That does not mean more weapons, it means better, safer weapons.

What is wrong with any of that?

Answer 4

Weapons of Mass Destruction is never justified. Thats why we always have problems with other countries like North Korea, Iran, Cuba and many more.

Answer 5

The biggest problem is the russians and chinese (remember them?) will see this as a threat - forcing them to develop counter measures. Why is Bush doing this? Does he think this will help with the war on terror? What an idiot.

Answer 6

Why shouldn't the only super power in the world upgrade it's nuclear arsonal? We may have to use it on two bit dictators in several places at once. Our old weapons are leaking and obsolete, we'll sell them to other counties and get bright shiny new, bigger, badder nukes for ourselves. And, pray to God we never have to use them or have a leader crazy enough to use it offensively.

Answer 7

No, this is insane. How can we argue against these weapons in other countries, yet develop them ourselves? This would be bad for America, and bad for the world.

Answer 8

We should give every country nukes...

Special air delivery, har har har...

Seriously though, Pandora's Box is open and it cannot be closed, only the naive and foolhearted do not adequately arm themselves for self-preservasion.

Answer 9

Naturally it is necessary!

Bush has to keep up his Political Payback to his contributors who paid for his campaign doesn't he?

And think of all of the millions more that one of these New Bombs can kill over what the older ones could!

Do you expect to live forever?????????

Answer 10

If I were President I would reduce our stockpile of nuclear weapons....

....by dropping several in the middle east....