Welcome to PatsFans.com

125 Nukes A Year

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Turk, Apr 8, 2006.

  1. Turk

    Turk Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Bush Wants Capacity to Make 125 Nukes a Year

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...6apr06,0,5989419.story?coll=la-home-headlines

    The administration wants the capability to turn out 125 new nuclear bombs
    per year by 2022, as the Pentagon retires older bombs that it claims will
    no longer be reliable or safe. The plan calls for the most sweeping
    realignment and modernization of the nation's massive system of
    laboratories and factories for nuclear bombs since the end of the Cold
    War.

    Bush Administration Unveils Nuclear Weapons Complex Blueprint
    By Ralph Vartabedian
    The Los Angeles Times
    Thursday 06 April 2006
    The administration's proposal would modernize the nation's complex of
    laboratories and factories as well as produce new bombs.
    The Bush administration on Wednesday unveiled a blueprint for
    rebuilding the United States' decrepit nuclear weapons complex, including
    restoration of a large-scale bomb manufacturing capacity.
    The plan calls for the most sweeping realignment and modernization of
    the nation's massive system of laboratories and factories for nuclear
    bombs since the end of the Cold War.
    Until now, the nation has depended on carefully maintaining aging
    bombs produced during the Cold War arms race, some several decades old.
    The administration, however, wants the capability to turn out 125 new
    nuclear bombs per year by 2022, as the Pentagon retires older bombs that
    it claims will no longer be reliable or safe.
    Under the plan, all of the nation's plutonium would be consolidated
    into a single facility that could be more effectively and cheaply defended
    against possible terrorist attacks. The plan would remove the plutonium
    now kept at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory by 2014, though
    transfers of the material could start sooner. In recent years, concern has
    sharply grown that Livermore, surrounded by residential neighborhoods,
    could not repel a terrorist attack.
    But the administration blueprint is facing sharp criticism, both from
    those who say it does not move fast enough to consolidate plutonium stores
    and from those who say restarting bomb production will encourage aspiring
    nuclear powers across the globe to develop weapons.
    The plan was outlined to Congress on Wednesday by Thomas D'Agostino,
    head of nuclear weapons programs at the National Nuclear Security
    Administration, a part of the Energy Department. While the weapons
    proposal would restore the capacity to make new bombs, D'Agostino said it
    is part of a larger effort to accelerate the dismantling of aging bombs
    left from the Cold War.
    D'Agostino acknowledged in an interview that the Administration is
    walking a fine line by modernizing the U.S. nuclear weapons program while
    assuring other nations that it is not seeking a new arms race. The
    credibility of the argument rests on the U.S. intent to sharply reduce its
    overall inventory of weapons.
    The administration is also moving quickly ahead with a new nuclear
    bomb program known as the "reliable replacement warhead," which began last
    year. Originally described as an effort to update existing weapons and
    make them inherently more reliable, it has been broadened and now includes
    the potential for new bomb designs. Weapons labs currently are engaged in
    a design competition.
    The U.S. built its last nuclear weapon in 1989 and last tested a
    weapon underground in 1992. Since the Cold War, the U.S. has depended on
    massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons to deter attacks. By contrast, it
    would now increasingly rely on the capability to build future bombs for
    deterrence, D'Agostino said.
    The blueprint calls for a modern complex to design a new nuclear bomb
    and have it ready in less than four years, allowing the nation to respond
    to changing military requirements. Such proposals in the past, such as for
    a nuclear bomb to attack underground bunkers, provoked concern that they
    undermine U.S. policy to stop nuclear proliferation.
    The impetus for the plan is a growing recognition that efforts to
    maintain older nuclear bombs and keep up a large nuclear weapons
    industrial complex are technically and financially unsustainable. Last
    year, a task force led by San Diego physicist David Overskei recommended
    that the Energy Department consolidate the system of eight existing
    weapons complexes into a single site.
    Overskei said Wednesday that the cost of security alone for the
    current infrastructure of plants over the next two decades is roughly $25
    billion. Security costs have grown, because the Sept. 11 attacks have
    forced the Energy Department to assume terrorists could mount a larger and
    better armed strike force.
    Peter Stockton, a former Energy Department security consultant and now
    an investigator for the Project on Government Oversight, criticized the
    plutonium consolidation plan in House testimony, saying it delays the
    difficult work too far into the future. Stockton added in an interview
    that the plutonium transfer at Livermore could be accomplished in a few
    months.
    Until now, Livermore lab officials have sharply disagreed with the
    idea of removing plutonium from their site, saying it was essential to
    their work. On Wednesday, a lab spokesman said the issue is "far less
    controversial" and the "decision rests in Washington."
    The Bush plan, described at a hearing of the strategic subcommittee of
    the House Armed Services Committee, would consolidate much of the weapons
    capacity, but not as completely or quickly as outside critics would like.
    The overall plan would not be fully implemented until 2030. A critical
    part of restarting U.S. nuclear bomb production involves so-called
    plutonium pits, hollow spheres surrounded by high explosives. The pits
    start nuclear fission and trigger the nuclear fusion in a bomb.
    The plutonium pits were built at the Energy Department's former Rocky
    Flats site near Denver, until the weapons plant was shut down in 1989
    after it violated major environmental regulations.In recent years, Los
    Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico has attempted to start limited
    production of plutonium pits and hopes to build a certified pit that will
    enter the so-called "war reserve" next year. Los Alamos would be producing
    about 30 to 50 pits per year by 2012, but the Energy Department said that
    is not enough to sustain the U.S. nuclear deterrent.
    In his testimony, D'Agostino estimated plutonium pits would last only
    45 to 60 years, after which they would be too unreliable and might result
    in an explosion smaller than intended. Critics outside the government
    sharply dispute that conclusion, saying there is no evidence that pits
    degrade over time and that the nation can maintain an adequate nuclear
    deterrent by carefully maintaining its existing weapons.
     
  2. Chevy

    Chevy Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    680
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -0

    #75 Jersey

  3. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,626
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Our first simian president appears to have made some new investments in the weapons manufacture industry. While this country is wallowing in debt, family healthcare cost is inflating at rates 700% greater than wages, the trade gap is in the trillions, and soldiers are dying in the ME because they don't have the right equipment, not to mention the squabbling over the military death benefit, this marginally human dolt wants to rebuild our nuclear arsenal!

    I remember a time when everyone talked about reduction and ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons. What the hell happenned to that?
     
  4. scout

    scout Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,725
    Likes Received:
    30
    Ratings:
    +51 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    My hope is that there are court proceedings dealing with this administration, gridlock in congress, and revolt by the American people for the next three years, thus tying the hands of Bush so he can not do anymore damage to our country.
     
  5. Turk

    Turk Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Last edited: Apr 9, 2006
  6. scout

    scout Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,725
    Likes Received:
    30
    Ratings:
    +51 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    Did anyone watch the CNN interview between Wolf and Seymour Hersh last Sunday. According to Hersh, the Bush Administration is holding on to an option of using nuclear weapons on Iran. They think that Iran has built its nuclear weapon system under a massive layer of underground protection which only a nuclear arsenal could obliterate. Supposedly, there are a number of high ranking generals that will resign if the administration does not cancel this option. I don't know the accuracy of the story. Although, if there is any truth to this, then these people in power should be put in straight jackets to even think of nuking the Middle East. I was not familiar with Hersh and noticed he was a Pulitzer Prize winner for his uncovering the My Lai Massacre.
    I looked for a link but haven't found any.
     
  7. scout

    scout Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,725
    Likes Received:
    30
    Ratings:
    +51 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

  8. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,927
    Likes Received:
    286
    Ratings:
    +781 / 18 / -23

    #24 Jersey

    It'll be done sooner or later. We're already 4 1/2 years too late.
     
  9. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,263
    Likes Received:
    330
    Ratings:
    +828 / 27 / -33

    I do not under the values and focus of this administration, just when things seem to be completely absurd they then become more absurd...it plays out like a bad script that seems like bad fiction, but is becoming more and more real every day.
     
  10. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,927
    Likes Received:
    286
    Ratings:
    +781 / 18 / -23

    #24 Jersey

    With a nuclear Iran, the values and focus should be clear - de-nuclearizing them before they nuke Israel because Iran wiping Israel off the face of the earth is almost a locked in fact IMO.
     
  11. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,263
    Likes Received:
    330
    Ratings:
    +828 / 27 / -33

    I do not understand the justification for any use of nuclear warhead on any situation at any time...there are other methods that can be used..maybe this is just sabre rattling, but the rhetoric troubles me..while I think Iran is a threat, I think it can be dealt with in other ways..going to war with them will create significant problems for everyone in this country and in the mideast.

    I believe in the old fashioned Moussad or CIA tactics, before everyone knew what they were doing and they could operate without congressional oversight.
     
  12. scout

    scout Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,725
    Likes Received:
    30
    Ratings:
    +51 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    "Everybody wants to rule the world" (Duran Duran). Should we just nuke everyone and call us United Kingdom? In a nutshell, we don't want you to have nuclear weapons so we are going to nuke you. Keep in mind, as soon as we send nuclear warheads up there's a real good chance North Korea will be sending some our way. I have a question. If our genius's in power decide to fire, how many people will have a say in the process?
     
  13. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,927
    Likes Received:
    286
    Ratings:
    +781 / 18 / -23

    #24 Jersey

    Dude, get your 80s bands straight - that's Tears for Fears :D
     
  14. scout

    scout Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,725
    Likes Received:
    30
    Ratings:
    +51 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    I stand corrected, your right, it is Tears for Fear. On the slightly larger issue, nuking the Middle East would be devastating. If there was anyone left standing, they would hate the U.S. and we would never recover.
     
  15. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    The environmental fallout would be beyond devastating; we'd literally darken the Earth. Iran's a big country, and if we nuked it we should be prepared to nuke the rest of them, because everyone in that region would try to take us out. So we launch, say 30 nukes to take out their major cities and military targets, and so what? They still might have some military capabilities, though their cities would be wrecked, and all that land with all that oil would be uninhabitable for... let's see, Plutonium-239 has a half-life of... 24,110 years.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2006

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>