USA developing new nuclear weapons

Remove all ads!

Recently I read in the newspaper that the Bush administration has given the OK to developing new and improved nuclear weapons. Can anyone tell me why we are doing this? WHY?!?!

Can you imagine what it would be like for a person from 1899 to be suddenly whisked forward in time and shown a nuclear weapons silo.

I can just hear the tour guide..."Now this is considered the highlight of the tour. Located in this room is the ability to destroy the possibility of tomorrow. Notice how the color of the maroon wallpaper playfully interacts with the color of the conically shaped warheads. That was my suggestion. (waits for applause) Thank you all for coming and cookies and milk will be served in the exit corridor."

Wouldn't the person from 1899 say something like..."Um..excuse me Mrs. Guide...but what was that part about destroying tomorrow?"

Why aren't we asking that question? Have we become so accustomed to the concept that we don't even notice when NEW and IMPROVED ways of destroying tomorrow are being created?

The fact that humanity completely lacks the wisdom and foresight to see the folly of even the existence of these weapons saddens me. The fact that no one has even made a fuss about the furthering of this folly SCARES me.

 

1) This was announced over a year ago -- going on a year and a half I believe.

2) The purpose of the study for new weapons would be to create a weapon that would not have as wide an area of effect capable of penetrating bunkers which they currently don't have - your alarmist post makes it seem like they're creating one with a wider scale of destruction which is exactly opposite of what is being done.

3) At the same time of the announcement of the research they announced they would start to reduce the numbers of nuclear weapons by over 2/3; getting rid of approximately 4,300 weapons.

So, I think your post is potentially misleading. If someone wants to do a searh you can probably find it in the Washington post around Feb 2002 - quite some time ago.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3025737.stm

I guess you mean this new generation of tiny little atom-bombs, which are so tiny and go so deep into the ground, that they even make tactical sense and may be actually used in an military conflict. A kind of conventional A-Bomb.

Guess, China wants them now too.

Edit:

"We have tried for 50-plus years to make these weapons unthinkable," Democratic Senator Jack Reed said. "And now we're talking about giving them a tactical application. It's a dangerous departure."

It's like a cultural taboo. Have a-bombs to threaten, but never think about using it.

Edit 2:

400bn$ = 400 000 000 000

US-Population (approx): 280 000 000

Per head: 1'429 $

Chinese-population (approx): 1 100 000 000

Per head: 364 $

I bet China is going to win the weapon race. If the world exists long enough.

[ May 25, 2003, 02:55: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

What do you think would happen if the USA announced we were completely disarming our nuclear arsenal and banning the development of these weapons in the future?

Would the world follow suit?

I for one would vote for a true LEADER who tried to accomplish this NEEDED task.

There was sadness in Albert's eyes for a reason...
Ever since 1945 the clock has been ticking.

Do you have the courage to live in a nuclear free world?

When I meet people of Chinese or Russian ancestry I fail to see the burning desire to obliterate our cities and the world as well.

Fear is going to kill us all one day...not the N. Koreans or whoever else is put into the psycological catagory of "the others" and therefore reduced to less than human standards.
N. Korea does not want to end the world. No one does. So why have we all agreed to live with the possibility?

It doesn't make sense...

Edit: I know what I've wrote may have come across as childish and unintelligent, but the whole nuclear issue bothers me very deeply. It seems to me that humanity has created a collective ego that is simply dangerous. In my own personal life, my ego has always been my greatest enemy. It still is. I would be willing to bet my personal truth applies to the larger scale.

What kind of person looks at the power to destroy millions and millions of people with a single act and then thinks to themselves, "Yeah, I can handle that responsibility."

Not me. I don't honestly believe anyone truly can. I don't believe humanity can.

[ May 25, 2003, 04:25: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

 

Yago -- You and I agree on most things, but not on this one. We would win in terms of tax dollars. One of the reasons why so many US companies are moving to China is the low wages. Why pay an American worker a living wage of $15.00 an hour when you can move to China and pay them .30 or .40 an hour? Plus not worry about minimum wages. Not only that, but they don't have to care about the environment, nor are unions a problem. That is why I can't bear to listen to ignorant people who rant about how big corps want to create jobs for US workers.

I should say that in terms of nukes, that no one ever really wins. Don't anyone tell me about WWII, because then we were the only one who had them. Things are different now.

 

If an American leader in the forseeable future ever really decides to completely dismantle the nuclear arsenal and attempts to do so he should be impeached and tried for treason. IMO.

 

Laches -- No one is suggesting that. But let me ask you this: What would be your feeling about a prez who decided to use them against a nation that had not used them on us? IMO, that person should be impeached by humanity.

 

I thought Late-Night-Thinker suggested that, am I wrong? Also, I could think of scenarios where I would support using nuclear weapons on a nation who hasn't used them - particularly weapons of the type that this thread was initially about. I may be a cold hearted bastard though.

I even think that using a nuclear weapon can be a morally right thing to do IF someone uses a nuclear weapon on your nation first. That is actually from an example a Canadian Doctor of Philosophy came up with when explaining the mutability of the good in a paper he'd come up with. He toured it around the philosophical community from Princeton to Oxford and last I heard no one had figured out a nice rebuttal.

EDIT - the putz couldn't spell Oxford, ironic perhaps.

 

Laches -- Yes, I reread LNT post. I had thought that he/she meant in terms of treaties, not as a blanket policy without international agreement. In that instance, I am corrected.

Edit: note that I did not say using them second. MAD has been a successful deterrent for fifty years for good reason.

[ May 25, 2003, 06:00: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

@Yago

USA might not think of using it but do you think any "terrorist" wouldn't?

@Laches

And then it would become morally right for them to use one back on you, right?

@Anyone or everyone
I personally think its horrible that people can even think about using nuclear anything. Even if they don't plan to blow up entire nations with them. Just the half life of nuclear waist should be enough to put any one using them, even for power. And these new weapons that are designed to massacre (spelling?) only a small amount of people maybe better than some other ones... But lets say USA uses it on someone who also posseses nuclear weapons, do you think that country would say "oh that doesn't really count as a nuclear weapon. So then it wouldn't be morally right if we go and nuke USA now."

Ofcourse they wouldn't think that. It would be more like, "Hey, thoses ****** in USA dropped a nuclear bomb on us. It doesn't matter what size it was its the thought that counts. They dropped a nuclear bomb on us, we have to pay them back tenfold!"
And then USA thinks now that they have been nuked its morally right to nuke someone in return, leading to the start of a nuclear war...

5 years later life on earth is exstinct.

 

Agreed, RotKU - The issue of whether or not to use nukes is larger than that of any one nation because of its impact on the entire of humanity. One only has to look at India and Pakistan to understand such implications. I think any sane nation would want to keep the nuclear genie in a tight bottle.

 

If use nuclear things at all, chandos.

 

1. Yes, we agree, on the tax-dollar. Yes, and approx. 1'500 Dollars per head and year does not sound to shocking for most Americans. But that does not meand (there we agree Chandos, I guess), that those 1'500 Dollars per American head aren't put down the drain. China came into my mind, because it's the league the Americans play in (says someone, who comes a country with a population of 7 millions, the average American state is bigger then my whole country). And the same per head game yields 350 Dollar per Chinese head. It's that game, which makes giantic numbers of wasted money sound "reasonable".

2. We agree on another thing, I guess, it is not at all reasonable for the Chinese to spend 350$ per head for useless nuclear weapons. They could spend it for schools and infrastructure.

3. We agree that China is an free-market utopia (yes, yes, yes). No unions, they get a stick on they're head and go to jail for trying to make a union. No rights for workers at all. They get a stick on their head and go to jail, when they mention rights for workers.

4. We do not agree on the future of China. They're economical growth is giantic. In this case, I fully agree with the analysis of the neo-cons, especially condoleeza rice, the future number 1 world power is China. And that's why opening the pandora's box of "tactical-tiny-nukes" is worrying me. China is in the same positions, as the US was in the 19th century. So small, yet so full of potential (demographical and economical potential, not "ideology").

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Republic_of_China

But I don't think it's very smart, to build a new "Spanish Armada" to keep the growing ones in check. In my view, all the talk about stopping terrorist with nuclear weapons is just plain humbug. Stop Timothy McVeigh through nuking Oklahoma city ??????

Military is not financed through exchange rates, Military is financed through purchasing power.

And finally: No one can have tactictal nukes and can expect the rest of the world, hey, it's ok, we do not care about our one national defence, we will gladly abandon any plans to develop them ourselves.

Belligrent behaviour plus tactictal nukes = children aren't a good idea right now, except for stubborn optimists.

[ May 25, 2003, 14:17: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Well soon the US need not fear anyone else using nukes on them. In a matter of years the the deterence for the US to use nukes for fear of reprisal will be gone. 'Star Wars' will see to that. The most aggresive move ever made by a nation in times of peace. Making one country impregnable to the most devastating weapon mankind has ever seen is a distinct and open threat to the rest of the world. Especially considering where the US seems to be going at the moment, if the current trend of leadership stays with ultra-right hawks in power I shudder what a US with plenty of nukes and no fear of reprisals might do.

If the world insists in having nukes the only safety the world can get is through deterence and fear that if you launch one you will get one back in the head. Soon the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons need not fear that. So it is not strange that they are developing new ones, they know they can do whatever they wish and no one can go against them.

 

It COULD be. Just like I said it COULD be for someone in the US to use them in retaliation. There is a difference between 'could'(actually I used 'can') and 'is.'

 

How can anyone situation EVER warrant nuclear weapons?

A nation nukes us so we nuke them back? What does that accomplish? Pre-emptive nuclear strikes? If my country ever did such a thing I would do whatever it took to remove the people from power who did such a thing. I doubt I am alone.

The problem with nuclear weapons is that they are unfathomable. The heartache of millions and millions of people dead and worse yet, the heartache that those who loved them must endure afterwards is simply too much to wrap your heart and mind around. So we use a form of denial in which we use logic without a soul attached to rationalize these kind of things. That is sociopathic.

Think with your heart...logic is the most powerful gift ever given to humanity, but to use it independantly of the soul is most dangerous indeed. In fact, it's evil.

If I had my way, I would erect a monument where the world trade centers stood. Not a monument of courage, not a monument of firemen, not a monument to the people lost. I would erect a statue of a woman and man crying. Showing those that hate us that they can hurt us, and hurt us deeply would go a long way to moving us forward peacefully. Responding to their attack by showing we are stronger than them is just going to prolong this insanity.


Edit: @Laches Why should that person be impeached and tried for treason? Explain that please.

 

This following example is weird and a doctor in philosophy came up with it and afaik, no one has really been able to find its flaw yet -- that includes people like David Lewis, Derek Parfit, Sydney Shoemaker and lots of other giants in the world of philosophy. The example is weird but, imo, amusing, bear with it.

I believe the guys name was Duncan McIntosh (sp?) and he is a professor of philosophy in Canada. He was writing a paper on ethics and his premise was that the good was mutable - it changed over time; so, doing something one day would be bad and the next day it would be good.

How can it EVER be good to use nuclear weapons. Imagine the following (please no comments like - that's not likely, that's not realistic etc. It is a hypothetical, go with it):

You're Jesus Christ. (Don't get lost in the unimportant parts of this either. It is a hypothetical, go with it.) So, as Jesus Christ it is safe to say that one of your wants or desires is what we'll term the Utilitarian Want (UW) -- the desire to avoid massive useless destruction. That's fairly straightforward right? A good guy like Jesus Christ would have this UW and this UW is a good thing?

Now, Jesus Christ runs for president of the good ol U.S. of A. and he wins when the hanging chads in Florida fall off and a bunch of people vote for him actually thinking they were voting for Pat Buchanan. Yeah Jesus.

Meanwhile, over in the evil and despotic U.S.S.R. Darth Vader has just seized control. Now Darth is a mean old s.o.b. and he wants to take over the world. Problem is, the good ol U.S. of A. is too strong for him to take over the world. However, Darth has access to the force which lets him read the minds of others and he reads the mind of Jesus Christ the new president of the good ol U.S. of A.

Ah ha! Darth discovers Jesus Christ is a pretty good guy and has this UW which will prevent him from causing massive useless harm. Now Darth doesn't have this UW, so, the path to world domination is obvious: Nuke the Western half of the world, or at least North America and Jesus Christ won't retaliate because the missles will already be in the air when they're launched and the good ol U.S. of A. will already be doomed so why retaliate when that will only cause more massive useless harm (useless because it won't help the US survive) leaving Darth Vader free to take over the world (or what's left of it.) Darth begins to ready his plan.

Meanwhile, over in the good ol U.S. of A. Jesus Christ sees an apparation of Obi Wan Kenobi that tells him Darth's plan. Now Jesus Christ is faced with a conundrum. He has this U.W. The only way to avoid massive useless harm is to become the sort of person who no longer has this UW right? In order to avoid massive useless harm, Jesus Christ must become the sort of son of a ***** that will launch his weapons back at Darth Vader even though it will just cause massive useless harm.

So, in order to prevent massive useless harm Jesus Christ becomes a son of a *****. Jesus Christ becoming a son of a ***** who is willing to destroy the world then is a good thing. Yeah Jesus. Would hardly be fair then to say that Jesus retaliating would be evil on the part of Jesus would it? (might be evil for lots of other people, but not Jesus.)

That's how a situation can warrant the use of nuclear force. Yeah Jesus. ( I just like writing that: Yeah Jesus.)

Also, I take it that suggestions like: "think with your heart" translate to: "you heartless s.o.b.?"

As far as why I think a president that actually took steps to completely disarm the US nuclear arsenal should be impeached? The above example should let you see why I think. No real worry about that though, no one that crazy could get elected.

 

hmm...well anyway...

so your saying that we should not disband our nuclear arsenal because Jesus Christ would not be able to send nukes against Darth Vader?

*crosses philosophy off his future class list*

think i'll stick to the sciences...

 

Way to miss the point.