US plans new nuclear weapons!

[shortalias]

Oh so it is ok if USA wants to break treaties then??? Maybe we should think about sending inspectors to check up on USA and threaten you with war!! LOL!!!


US 'plans new nuclear weapons'

The new weapons could be used against deep bunkers

A leaked document suggests that Washington is beginning detailed planning for a new generation of smaller nuclear weapons.

The document - published by an anti-proliferation watchdog and confirmed as genuine by US officials - indicates the weapons could be used against targets like deep bunkers that contain chemical or biological agents.

The Los Alamos Study Group claims the plans would challenge the foundations of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which limits the development of new designs for nuclear bombs.

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says the plans clearly fit in with the wider Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes in the future when the US feels itself to be threatened.

'First strike' right

The New Mexico-based Los Alamos Study Group posted on its website what it said were the minutes of last month's meeting in the Pentagon of senior US nuclear scientists.

It said the meeting was called to plan a secret conference "to discuss what new nuclear weapons to build, how they might be tested... and how to sell the ideas to Congress and the American public".

The group said that the conference of senior military officials and scientists would be held in August at the Omaha headquarters of the US Strategic Command in Nebraska.

The group did not say how it obtained the document, but said it decided to publish it taking into account Washington's "bold sweep of nuclear weapons planning".

"It's very rare that so many details about the nuclear weapons agenda of the Bush administration would appear in the same documents, in the same place," the group's spokesman, Greg Mello, said.

The minutes, which Bush administration officials confirm as genuine, also talk of lower yield nuclear weapons being developed with reduced collateral damage.

One of the principal tasks being considered for such devices is the destruction of deep bunkers where chemical, biological or nuclear weapons are stored.

President Bush has repeatedly stated that the US would consider pre-emptive strikes in the future if it considers itself to be threatened.

 

[shortalias]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2779069.stm

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: shortalias
Oh so it is ok if USA wants to break treaties then??? Maybe we should think about sending inspectors to check up on USA and threaten you with war!! LOL!!!


US 'plans new nuclear weapons'

The new weapons could be used against deep bunkers

A leaked document suggests that Washington is beginning detailed planning for a new generation of smaller nuclear weapons.

The document - published by an anti-proliferation watchdog and confirmed as genuine by US officials - indicates the weapons could be used against targets like deep bunkers that contain chemical or biological agents.

The Los Alamos Study Group claims the plans would challenge the foundations of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which limits the development of new designs for nuclear bombs.

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says the plans clearly fit in with the wider Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes in the future when the US feels itself to be threatened.

'First strike' right

The New Mexico-based Los Alamos Study Group posted on its website what it said were the minutes of last month's meeting in the Pentagon of senior US nuclear scientists.

It said the meeting was called to plan a secret conference "to discuss what new nuclear weapons to build, how they might be tested... and how to sell the ideas to Congress and the American public".

The group said that the conference of senior military officials and scientists would be held in August at the Omaha headquarters of the US Strategic Command in Nebraska.

The group did not say how it obtained the document, but said it decided to publish it taking into account Washington's "bold sweep of nuclear weapons planning".

"It's very rare that so many details about the nuclear weapons agenda of the Bush administration would appear in the same documents, in the same place," the group's spokesman, Greg Mello, said.

The minutes, which Bush administration officials confirm as genuine, also talk of lower yield nuclear weapons being developed with reduced collateral damage.

One of the principal tasks being considered for such devices is the destruction of deep bunkers where chemical, biological or nuclear weapons are stored.

President Bush has repeatedly stated that the US would consider pre-emptive strikes in the future if it considers itself to be threatened.

Source?

 

[yowolabi]

i'm anti-war, and anti-spending trillions on new weapons. However, a treaty is an agreement. One nation does this, the other nation does that. Any nation is free to withdraw from a treaty if it chooses. Of course, doing that also means the other parties in a treaty have to reconsider their part in it.

 

[Kadarin]

Militarily, it's a race between those who design fortifications and those who design ways to breach those fortifications. It has been thus throughout history.. If nations like North Korea and Iraq can design and build bunkers that cannot be taken by any kind of conventional weapon, then perhaps new designs of purpose-built low-yield nuclear weapons need to be looked at. It's possible that what's needed is a revision to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (or whatever specific treaties cover this) in order to reflect current reality. The technology that can go into nuclear weapons today is much more advanced than it was 40 years ago; not every nuclear bomb is a city-buster.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: yowolabi
i'm anti-war, and anti-spending trillions on new weapons. However, a treaty is an agreement. One nation does this, the other nation does that. Any nation is free to withdraw from a treaty if it chooses. Of course, doing that also means the other parties in a treaty have to reconsider their part in it.

The US only obey's treats when its in "our best interest". I only hope that we see the development of a force large enough to challenge the US...maybe some allience with the PRC.

 

[Corn]

I only hope that we see the development of a force large enough to challenge the US...maybe some allience with the PRC.

Words of a freedom loving middle aged fool? LOL, not, just a fool. To what end Hagturd?

 

[glenn1]

A conference considering the idea of new weapons and their feasibility != new weapons being built or even firm plans made for them being built.

 

[Jmman]

Ugghhh, don't we already have nukes designed to destroy underground bunkers??

 

[308nato]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: yowolabi
i'm anti-war, and anti-spending trillions on new weapons. However, a treaty is an agreement. One nation does this, the other nation does that. Any nation is free to withdraw from a treaty if it chooses. Of course, doing that also means the other parties in a treaty have to reconsider their part in it.

The US only obey's treats when its in "our best interest". I only hope that we see the development of a force large enough to challenge the US...maybe some allience with the PRC.

Well....ally yourself with the PRC then. Nothing like a little Canadian sabre-rattling to get our attention.

 

[Tiger]

Nobody knows if this "document" even exists yet people take some anti-war drivel on a website as gospel.
Are you people really that naive?

 

[Cfour]

I only hope that we see the development of a force large enough to challenge the US...maybe some allience with the PRC.

It's a sad day when some tool hopes for the demise of his own country...

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Jmman
Ugghhh, don't we already have nukes designed to destroy underground bunkers??

I don't think they are nukes, but I believe there are some missles/bombs designed to penetrate more than 100 feet into the ground to strike at burrowed in enemies.

 

[StageLeft]

Tactical nukes are not cool. The US can take those bunkers out with bigger and bigger bunker busters. BIG ones.

 

[CurtCold]

So basically they may be developing BFG's? Of course the US is developing more sofisticated Nuclear weapons, to be the worlds police you need the latest and greatest technology.

No one in the US will be griping about these new technology's when their saving our butts.

 

[tcsenter]

Oh so it is ok if USA wants to break treaties then??? Maybe we should think about sending inspectors to check up on USA and threaten you with war!! LOL!!!

This does not run afoul of any treaties we are party to which prohibit the development of nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty is in fact just what it says, a ban on nuclear weapon "tests" as in an actual nuclear detonation. Don't worry, this won't require any new nuclear testing.

Specifically exempted are activities like decommissioning weapons we no longer feel are safe because of age and adapting current warheads to new delivery vehicles.

But even if we were breaking a treaty, all treaties permit any country to break that treaty with advanced notice to the international community, and all nations insist that all treaties stipulate this before they will sign. There is a reason for this.

 

[dugweb]

Originally posted by: shortalias
Oh so it is ok if USA wants to break treaties then??? Maybe we should think about sending inspectors to check up on USA and threaten you with war!! LOL!!!

Desperate times call for desperate measures... plus, were teh bestest

Personelly i wish we would just wipe canada off the face of teh planet so we wouldnt have idiotic comments like that guys 😉 😀

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Jmman
Ugghhh, don't we already have nukes designed to destroy underground bunkers??

Yeah, but they do it by using a high yield warhead. In other words, they are just your average nuke, but we can use them to take out a bunker if necessary. The point fo making these would be to use lower yield bombs, delivered more effectively. I think shortalias would rather use a 9MT warhead detonated at low level to take out a bunker, rather than a 100KT or smaller warhead detonated underground.

 

[bunker]

Just want to point one thing out:

The Los Alamos Study Group claims the plans would challenge the foundations of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which limits the development of new designs for nuclear bombs.

LIMITS, not bans.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: CurtCold
So basically they may be developing BFG's? Of course the US is developing more sofisticated Nuclear weapons, to be the worlds police you need the latest and greatest technology.

No one in the US will be griping about these new technology's when their saving our butts.

No, this is about the USA making smaller nuclear weapons with a more effective delivery method. NOT bigger, just able to get closer to the target, thus needing a smaller yield to carry out the mission.

 

[Jmman]

Actually, here is an old article about these and evidently they do comply with the treaty anyway......Text

 

[CurtCold]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: CurtCold
So basically they may be developing BFG's? Of course the US is developing more sofisticated Nuclear weapons, to be the worlds police you need the latest and greatest technology.

No one in the US will be griping about these new technology's when their saving our butts.

No, this is about the USA making smaller nuclear weapons with a more effective delivery method. NOT bigger, just able to get closer to the target, thus needing a smaller yield to carry out the mission.

That's basically what I was trying to say. The BFG from Q2, which basically allows a person, to infiltrate the enemy's postition, and set off the bomb, which doesn't destroy the whole area, just the target.

I watched a special on Discovery channel about the development of these weapons, which I think is a good idea. Instead of nuking the whole city, you end up taking out a specific area instead.

 

[HOWITIS]

i don't see anything wrong with this, there are a few countries i would like to nuke, hint: *France*

 

[FoBoT]

i don't have a problem with any of that, sounds good

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Cfour

I only hope that we see the development of a force large enough to challenge the US...maybe some allience with the PRC.

It's a sad day when some tool hopes for the demise of his own country...

We don't claim him just like we don't claim Johnny Walker Lindh or Michael Jackson