New H-Bomb Project
 

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtri ... ci_3480733

[quote:75358]For the first time in more than 20 years, U.S. nuclear-weapons scientists are designing a new

H-bomb, the first of probably several new nuclear explosives on the drawing boards.

If they succeed, in perhaps 20 or 25 more years, the United States would have an entirely new nuclear arsenal, and a highly automated fac- tory capable of turning out more warheads as needed, as well as new kinds of warheads.

"We are on the verge of an exciting time," the nation's top nuclear weapons executive, Linton Brooks, said last week at Lawrence Livermore weapons design laboratory.

Teams of roughly

20 scientists and engineers at the nation's two laboratories for nuclear-explosive design — Livermore and Los Alamos in New Mexico — are in a head-to-head competition to offer designs for the first of the new thermonuclear explosives, termed "reliable replacement warheads" or RRWs.

Designers are aiming for bombs that will be simpler, easier to maintain over decades and, if they fell into terrorists' hands, able to be remotely destroyed or rendered useless. Once the designs are unveiled in September, the Bush administration and Congress could face a major choice in the future of the U.S. arsenal: Do they keep maintaining the existing, tested weapons or begin diverting money and manpower to developing the newly designed but untested weapons?

Administration officials see the new weapons and the plant to make them as "truly transformative," allowing the dismantlement of thousands of reserve weapons.

But within the community of nuclear weapons experts, the notion of fielding untested weapons is controversial and turns heavily on how much the new bombs would be like the well-tested weapons that the United States already has.

"I can't believe that an admiral or a general or a future president, who are putting the U.S. survival at stake, would accept an untested weapon if it didn't have a test base," said physicist and Hoover Institution fellow Sidney Drell, a longtime adviser to the government and its labs on nuclear-weapons issues.

"The question is how do you really ensure long-term reliability of the stockpile without testing?" said Hugh Gusterson, an MIT anthropologist who studies the weapons labs and their scientists. "RRW is partly an answer to that question and it's an answer to the question (by nuclear weapons scientists) of 'What do I do to keep from being bored?'"

The prize for the winning lab is tens, perhaps hundreds of million of dollars for carrying its bomb concept into prototyping and production. If manufactured, the first RRW would replace two warheads on submarine-launched missiles, the W76 and W88, together the most numerous active weapons and the cornerstone of the U.S. nuclear force.

Altogether, the nation has 5,700 nuclear bombs and warheads of 12 basic types, plus more than 4,200 weapons kept in reserve as insurance against aging and failure of the active, fielded arsenal.

Most are 25-35 years old. All were exploded multiple times under the Nevada desert before U.S. nuclear testing halted in 1992. It is in most respects the world's most sophisticated nuclear arsenal, and beyond opposition at home to continued testing, ending testing made sense to discourage other nations from testing to advance their nuclear capabilities.

Faced by the Soviet Union, Cold War weapons scientists devised their bombs for the greatest power in the smallest, lightest package, so thousands could be delivered en masse and cause maximum destruction. Designers compare those weapons to Ferraris, sleek and finely tuned.

Scientists at the weapons laboratories are laboring to keep the bombs and warheads in working order, by examining them for signs of deterioration and replacing parts as faithfully to the original manufacturing as possible. It is an expensive and not especially stimulating job.

Some worry that an accumulation of small changes could undermine the bombs' reliability. So far, every year since 1995 directors of the weapons labs and secretaries of defense and energy have assured two presidents that the weapons are safe, secure and will detonate as designed.

The new reliable replacement warheads are actually an old idea that 1950s-era weapons designers called, with some disdain, the "wooden bomb." Bomb physicists were proud of their racier, more compact designs and figured they were plenty dependable already. The wooden bomb by comparison was boring.

"They said, 'Well heck, that isn't a challenge to anybody'," recalled Ray Kidder, a former Livermore physicist who found a chilly reception to proposals in the 1980s for clunkier, more reliable designs. "It was like saying, 'Well, why don't you make a Model A Ford.'"

Now the wooden bomb is back in vogue. With fewer, simpler kinds of warheads, the argument goes, the arsenal could be maintained more inexpensively [/quote:75358]

"We are on the verge of an exciting time," the nation's top nuclear weapons executive, Linton Brooks, said last week at Lawrence Livermore weapons design laboratory.

I don't like it when Nuclear Weapons executives use the word "exciting" to describe a breakthrough in their industry.

because everyone knows America needs even more nuclear weapons...


honestly wtf are we stockpiling for, World War 3?

We are running out of glass. dance:

Exactly what I was going to quote. So this is where that 6.9% increase in military spending is going rolleyes:

[quote:1c777] Altogether, the nation has 5,700 nuclear bombs[/quote:1c777]

And you need a whole new arsenal for what exactly? I think 5,700 Nuclear bombs is more than enough.

see this shows how many stupid double standards the hypocritical US has hake:

did you read the fact that they planned on decomissioning the old bombs, not just grow the stock they already have, you fucking n00bs

decommissioning then fucking rebuilding aint exactly disarmament, stfu.

What ever happened to servicing the weapons, why spend 10000x as much to get brand new ones when you already have perfectly working ones already.

Besides Nuclear weapons are wrong, end of story, having the whole world know that the US is getting brand spanking new nukes is going to encourage the middle east to do the same. Seems like their encouraging a nuclear war.

nothing like that new nuke smell

"Designers are aiming for bombs that will be simpler, easier to maintain over decades and, if they fell into terrorists' hands, able to be remotely destroyed or rendered useless"

Easier to maintain, so you wont have nuclear mishaps and disasters and safety devices that can make them useless if fallen into the wrong hands, for example if a nuke sub sank in enemy territory. Its called "improvement" we improved the design of computers, cars, guns, tanks, submarines, everything.

It would also make the bombs less expensive to maintain(which in turn would also decrease the "defense budget" that all you wanks have your panties in a knot about(though I dont know why YOU care what our gov't spends its money on)

Its all research and development of a prototype and/or design not fucking full scale production, 30 years from now is when they [i]might[/] start getting built and please don't think the UK won't be salivating over it as well.

i love how you try to defend the US nuclear weapon stock pile nyck as if it was a nascar or something you hold dear to you, i mean do you forget how wrong these weapons are and how they affect innocent people like those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But "yeaa--hawww" if America can have such newer weapons and have such a dumb bitch with the power to use them leading your country, then middle eastern countries and others should be allowed to aswell. Double standards.

oh and nyck the UK has way way way wayyyy less nuclear weapons than the US so dont even go there tool, i mean fuck china only has 400 hake:

[quote:7711e]
Declared nuclear weapons:

Country Warheads active/total*
United States 5,735/9,460
United Kingdom <200

(edited other countries out.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ar_weapons
[/quote:7711e]

So if Iran ever do want 1 nuclear weapon (even though they do not or will not) i dont think a country with over 6000 can say shit.

Double standards.
Double standards.
Double standards.


sleeping:


oh yea israel aswell


Double standards.
Double standards.
Double standards.


sleeping:

1st off you and me are oil and water. Every single response from you is something laced with an insult(what in the fuck does Nascar have to do with anything) if anyone disagrees with you thats the first thing you do, you insult them, so grow the fuck up.

second of all this entire article talks about how 2 companies our trying to create a new prototype which may or may not even be used. If they can make a weapon that is easier to maintain and can be deactivated/destroyed if someone who shouldnt have one does get one. How is that Bad? They never stated about making A MILLION MORE SUPER POWERFUL BOMBS. The article doesnt state at all about making a more powerful bomb, just making it easier to maintain/deactivate. Jesus H Christ get off your high horse, pull you head out of your ass and stop screaming double standard this, Iran that, whaaa whaa whaa

Third, How the fuck do you know "such a dumb bitch with the power to use them leading your country," WHAT THE FUCK. You can tell whos going to be running the country in 25 to 30 years..My God man you have a gift. Guess what, President Bush's presidency ends in 2008, He would be a distant memory before these weapons would be able to be produced(if at all, again its a race to make a DESIGN for it)

Forth I said the UK because guess where they got their design, helping the US during the Manhattan Project, we are also allies, so of course they are gonna want/get the new design if its produced. I said nothing about them building a stockpile like the US(again putting words in my mouth)

fifth I'm amazed at how well you know the Iranian Government and all of its plans, so much so that you are POSITIVE, they have no desire for a nuclear weapon and that all their intentions are very innocent and well.

sixth again you mistrew fact cause you have this huge fucking BLAME USA for everything set of blinders on. It was Europe that pushed for sanctions against Iran, of course the USA backed them, along with Russia and China who are "allies" with Iran. So what does that tell you. Whos to say this nutjob wouldnt have started dropping nukes on Denmark and other parts of Europe for this whole cartoon ordeal. These people have no fear of death, so what if they got nuked back, they fufilled their duty to allah

I want to see a nuke with ads all over it like NASCAR!!!!

good post

you are the married man bringing up a photo of nutella on my face as if it would insult me so there is another double standard for you sleeping:

[quote:5ac7d]I'm amazed at how well you know the Iranian Government and all of its plans, so much so that you are POSITIVE, they have no desire for a nuclear weapon and that all their intentions are very innocent[/quote:5ac7d]

I'm amazed at how well you know the Iranian Government and all of its plans to produce nuclear weapons. So stfu.

[quote:5ac7d]These people have no fear of death, so what if they got nuked back, they fufilled their duty to allah[/quote:5ac7d]

dumb, stereotyped and racist.

Detterence plays a role in every countries nuclear policy, why Iran intends on building a nuclear bomb, I think they are atleast.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/ ... 76,00.html

statec, I think you need to worry about more than just the US using nukes...

You can't hug each other with bombs man.

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":f4d74]
I want to see a nuke with ads all over it like NASCAR!!!![/quote:f4d74]

lol If Bush had his way he'd get royalties. The nuclear bomb was a mistake. But I guess desperate times call for blowing lots people up. *stupid*