How come WE can have them and THEY can't?

[akarunway 1]

Bush Administration Unveils Nuclear Weapons Complex Blueprint
By Ralph Vartabedian, Times Staff Writer
April 6, 2006


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.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Balls 0]

Do you trust yourself with a gun?
Do you trust a third grader with one?

They are the third grade kid.

----------------------------------------
....so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

[Gravitymaster 0]

How come who can't have what?

[akarunway 1]

I had my son shooting a 9mm at 6 yrs. old. All in the training.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Balls 0]

Thats cool shootings fun

I'll rephrase that:
"would you trust the average thrid grader with a gun?"

----------------------------------------
....so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

[akarunway 1]

Not if can't spell THIRD grade in the third grade

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[LargeBoy 0]

Quote

Do you trust yourself with a gun?
Do you trust a third grader with one?

They are the third grade kid.

i think America should be made to give up all its nuclear weapons, you've shown that you can't be trusted not to use them !!!

America is the only country to have used nuclear weapons on another country...not once, but twice and you justify using them by saying you were at war with the other country and wanted to "save more lives" by bringing the war to and end quicker

When you inavde Iran, what if Iran uses them against America to "stop anymore deaths on their part" like you said about why it was ok to drop TWO nuclear bombs on Japan ?

So, your argument of it being ok for you to have them because you can be trusted doesn't convince me, America has already shown it can't be trusted with them

[Erroll 80]

Quote

They are the third grade kid.

Who determines that?

[Lefty 0]

WE can have them because it is in our national interests to have them. THEY cannot have them because it is in our national interests for them not to have them. Playing nice and sharing nuclear weapon capabilities might fly if the world stage were a kindergarten. However, each country does what it can to ensure its safety, even if it means being [sarcastic whine] hypocritical [/sarcastic whine]. Iran does the same thing, by the way. If interests between two countries conflict, the one who proves itself the strongest dictates what the other can and cannot have. Just the way nature works. Sorry it's not fair.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[warpedskydiver 0]

i think America should be made to give up all its nuclear weapons, you've shown that you can't be trusted not to use them !!!

America is the only country to have used nuclear weapons on another country...not once, but twice and you justify using them by saying you were at war with the other country and wanted to "save more lives" by bringing the war to and end quicker

When you inavde Iran, what if Iran uses them against America to "stop anymore deaths on their part" like you said about why it was ok to drop TWO nuclear bombs on Japan ?

So, your argument of it being ok for you to have them because you can be trusted doesn't convince me, America has already shown it can't be trusted with them

[LargeBoy 0]

Quote

i think America should be made to give up all its nuclear weapons, you've shown that you can't be trusted not to use them !!!

America is the only country to have used nuclear weapons on another country...not once, but twice and you justify using them by saying you were at war with the other country and wanted to "save more lives" by bringing the war to and end quicker

When you inavde Iran, what if Iran uses them against America to "stop anymore deaths on their part" like you said about why it was ok to drop TWO nuclear bombs on Japan ?

So, your argument of it being ok for you to have them because you can be trusted doesn't convince me, America has already shown it can't be trusted with them

Well I am unsure of your nationality but it is quite possible that without the use of nuclear weapons in WWII that you may not have ever been born and that your country may have been defeated and all it's people enslaved, and the counry's resources plundered.

On the other hand if that doesn't bother you then give up all you have and remove yourself from the gene pool.

I am probably more well versed in the area of nuclear weapons than the average person and I find them both abhorrent and neccessary.

[popsjumper 2]

Let's see now...I am having to deal with a potential threat to my safety and I have a big stick to protect myself...

Hmmmm...should I give the threat a big stick too?
Yeah, that's sounds like a good idea.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[warpedskydiver 0]

i'm English

the war in Europe was over by the time America dropped the bombs on Japan, so i'd still have been born talking English, thanks

Quote

So you're of the opinion WWII was over for Britain after VE Day?...and the brits wouldn't have had to continue to assist in defeating japan?

• Quote

[LargeBoy 0]

Quote

Well I am unsure of your nationality but it is quite possible that without the use of nuclear weapons in WWII that you may not have ever been born and that your country may have been defeated and all it's people enslaved, and the counry's resources plundered

no, i mean that the above would not have happened.

[LargeBoy 0]

Quote

Let's see now...I am having to deal with a potential threat to my safety and I have a big stick to protect myself...

Hmmmm...should I give the threat a big stick too?
Yeah, that's sounds like a good idea.

are you seriously saying that America should and would, use nuclear weapons agaisnt another country that has not got them? America is seen by many muslims as a world bully as it is, if you ever used nuclear weapons again, how many more 9/11's do you think you're going to have?

[Richards 0]

Because they have stated a desire to destroy Isreal for starters. In general the middle east is a hotbed of lunacy and therefefore none of them should not be allowed to play with nuclear toys.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[popsjumper 2]

somewhere I missed where I said use them...you're extrapolating in error.

Quote

...America is seen by many muslims as a world bully as it is...

One opinion amongst many...your point is?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[LargeBoy 0]

Quote

somewhere I missed where I said use them...you're extrapolating in error.

Quote

...America is seen by many muslims as a world bully as it is...

One opinion amongst many...your point is?

ok, if America is not going to use them, why does America need them? America's military seems good at invading countries and getting rid of their leaders and changing ragimes.... so, as long as America keeps doing this and stops any potential threats from getting any nuclear weapons themselves, you can give yours up as you are not going to use them, correct?

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...ok, if America is not going to use them, why does America need them?

The argument for deterrence is old-hat; it’s been around since the cold war and is still with us.

Quote

America's military seems good at invading countries and getting rid of their leaders and changing ragimes....

Iraq? Nicaragua? Any others? Sorry, but I don’t see either of those examples as indicating that the U.S. is very good at this…in an overt sort of way. Covertly? Who’s to say?

Quote

so, as long as America keeps doing this and stops any potential threats from getting any nuclear weapons themselves, you can give yours up as you are not going to use them, correct?

I disagree...why put down your big stick once you have it in hand? As a show of peace? And when the bully finally does find a stick of his own, where did your stick go in the meantime? It’s not where you left it.
Keep it, as per the deterrence argument.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[steveorino 7]

In the things of the world, MIGHT makes RIGHT.

I know, if you are not one of the mighty -- it isn't fair. Who said life was fair?

steveOrino

[Trent 0]

Quote

When you invade iran (as you surely will, it's just a matter of time) will Iran be justified in Bombing the fuck out of Mainland America with their nuclear weapons to "save lifes" just like you did with Japan?

This is the biggest bullshit argument ever. Sure the US used atomic weapons on Japan in WW2. It ended the war and DID on a whole save lives (if you don't think so, well... nothing can be done to convince you). What most people SEEM to forget is that JAPAN started the war with us. JAPAN was pretty universally seen as the "bad guy". Japan's use of suicide missions (pacific islands) and kamikazes was a pretty good indicator of what they'd do to win. The nukes were a horrible thing, but I'm sure it wasn't just a happy US government saying "haha, watch this!" when they decided to use them.

Iran openly threatens the world. Iran constantly violates the UN guidelines (since so many of you hold the UN in such esteem). Most of the world has come out AGAINST Iran having nukes, except for China and Russia and even they kinda say they don't want them to have nukes. Who are the bad guys? Who is sabre rattling and trying to make it obvious that they're gearing up for war?

I fully expect some nitpicky replies that avoid the general idea of my post... but that's to be expected.

Oh, hello again!

[champu 1]

Quote

Do you trust yourself with a gun?
Do you trust a third grader with one?

They are the third grade kid.

That's not quite valid.

You don't trust the average third grader with a gun because he may not understand its operation or the consequences of its use. You don't trust Iran with nuclear weapons because they may be familiar with both of the above, but given the right few events, no longer care.

China, Russia, the US, France, India, and frankly even North Korea having nuclear weapons doesn't worry me all that much. M.A.D. works great when, at the end of the day, the parties involved want to not get dead.

Pakistan, with its numerous border conflicts near Afghanistan and infighting between the central government and tribal areas in the southwest starts to concern me a bit.

Iran, with her weapons and personnel support to the conflict in Iraq, along with a general hostile attitude towards neighbors such as Israel would certainly worry me if she had nuclear weapons.

[billvon 2,991]

>In the things of the world, MIGHT makes RIGHT.
>I know, if you are not one of the mighty -- it isn't fair. Who said life was fair?

One of the more honest replies. I agree, that's the main reason we have them and tell other people they can't. Problem is that those weaklings grow up. Pakistan and India now have nuclear weapons; we supported them during their development. Heck, we recently agreed to help India with their nuclear program even though they never signed the nonproliferation treaty. At some point we will be allied with Iran and will support development of _their_ nuclear weapons, perhaps to thwart the ambitions of Iraq, whose next government will likely hate the US. Or there will be some other reasons we really want Iran better armed than her neighbors.

Regardless of the way it happens, all these 'weakling' states will eventually get nuclear weapons; trying to supress technology has never worked. Which means that we had better start figuring out pretty soon how to get along with the rest of the world. Pre-emptive invasion may not always be a good idea; someday those weaklings may get teeth. It may not be fair that they can destroy New York as easily as we destroyed Nagasaki - but like you said, life ain't fair.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Do you trust yourself with a gun?
Do you trust a third grader with one?

They are the third grade kid.

Really? We unneccessarily dropped them o(A-bomb)n Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 45, then started nuclear testing in the Bikini Islands, Kwajalene and others after WWII, causing cancer in the locals for decades - water babies, etc....

Are we the 3rd graders, or is it just nationalist to say so?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you trust yourself with a gun?
Do you trust a third grader with one?

They are the third grade kid.

i think America should be made to give up all its nuclear weapons, you've shown that you can't be trusted not to use them !!!

America is the only country to have used nuclear weapons on another country...not once, but twice and you justify using them by saying you were at war with the other country and wanted to "save more lives" by bringing the war to and end quicker

When you inavde Iran, what if Iran uses them against America to "stop anymore deaths on their part" like you said about why it was ok to drop TWO nuclear bombs on Japan ?

So, your argument of it being ok for you to have them because you can be trusted doesn't convince me, America has already shown it can't be trusted with them

Discovery channel had the 60th anniversary last August and they stated that we intentionally didn't drop on Hiroshima for the entire war because we wanted to see the damage to an unmollested city after we dropped the A-bomb. We didn't want to end the war earlier, we wanted to use the war as a scientific test and we denounced Dr. Mengele.