He said the current nuclear stockpile has been re-engineered to extend its life span, but such extensions cannot continue indefinitely. Without a modernization program, Gates said, the long-term outlook for the arsenal is "bleak."
"No one has designed a new nuclear weapon in the United States since the 1980s, and no one has built a new one since the early 1990s," he said. "To be blunt," Gates said, "there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program."
The US National Nuclear Security Administration has lost a quarter of its personnel since the middle of the 1990s. A half of US nuclear scientists are over 50 years of age, whereas young specialists have never been involved in the development of nuclear arms. In addition, the USA has not been holding nuclear tests since 1992.
"Currently, the United States is the only declared nuclear power that is neither modernizing its nuclear arsenal nor has the capability to produce a new nuclear warhead," Gates said. Britain and France have programs to support their potentials, whereas China and Russia harbor ambitious plans to develop new weapons, he added.
I haven't read this story elsewhere, but what of it? Is the US to resume nuclear ambitions?
Why not? With security upgrades and other improvements we can be up and running and keep maintaining our deterent forces which is a good thing.
Need Reasons?
1. Russia
2. China
3. Iran
4. Pakistan
5. North Korea
See my point?
Also: Nuclear weapons are useful as a "deterrent," because we assume that when we kill a city full of civilians, the head of our enemy will feel sorry for all the innocents and cease fire? And that he'll give up whatever he's doing to piss us off, just to save those people?
No, nuclear weapons are successful as a deterrent due to a little thing called mutually assured destruction. The idea is that nobody is going to attack someone that's going to destroy them in turn, and if both parties have that capability then war will never break out. Theoretically.
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe just hit 4 million percent. Some people say it is only 165,000, but they are just being stupid. -Scott Adams, artist and writer of Dilbert
Hologram wrote:No, nuclear weapons are successful as a deterrent due to a little thing called mutually assured destruction. The idea is that nobody is going to attack someone that's going to destroy them in turn, and if both parties have that capability then war will never break out. Theoretically.
Let's say I'm an enemy of the US, and I'm saying that theory is wrong... because it wagers that I consider the life of my people to be worth something. If I want to blow up the USA, then I will... and if the US bombs my country at the same time, that's just even more civilians killed, what do I care? I've escaped to another country by now. Are you going to destroy that one too? Am I supposed to become all teary-eyed at the loss of my people, enough for me to stop killing yours? Did that work for you? The cause of good is worth more than lives! (At least, that's what you said when you tried to stop my evil regime. And that's what I'm saying about my antiamerican cause.)
Better than Nukes are Nanowyrms that are embedded in corn, rice, and wheat. When consumed, your body becomes a host to almost undetectable Nanowyrms that form Nano Arrays throughout the human body and brain. By means of this "array", the Mother Computer can send commands to the host and make him or her do whatever the Mother Computer wants.
Army of GOD wrote:This thread is now about my large penis
Ditocoaf wrote:At some point, will we develop a weapon deadly enough that it won't be necessary to upgrade? I mean, there are only so many people to kill...
Ditocoaf wrote:
At some point, will we develop a weapon deadly enough that it won't be necessary to upgrade? I mean, there are only so many people to kill...
Don't be such a pussy
only so many people to kill. the best point yet in my opinion...
Hologram wrote:No, nuclear weapons are successful as a deterrent due to a little thing called mutually assured destruction. The idea is that nobody is going to attack someone that's going to destroy them in turn, and if both parties have that capability then war will never break out. Theoretically.
Let's say I'm an enemy of the US, and I'm saying that theory is wrong... because it wagers that I consider the life of my people to be worth something. If I want to blow up the USA, then I will... and if the US bombs my country at the same time, that's just even more civilians killed, what do I care? I've escaped to another country by now. Are you going to destroy that one too? Am I supposed to become all teary-eyed at the loss of my people, enough for me to stop killing yours? Did that work for you? The cause of good is worth more than lives! (At least, that's what you said when you tried to stop my evil regime. And that's what I'm saying about my antiamerican cause.)
And that, of course, is our greatest fear. That and a grave mistake/misunderstanding that leads to nuclear war. That's the reason that the west is so concerned about so-called "rogue" nations that are pursuing nuclear weapons and don't care if anyone destroys them so long as, say in the case of Iran, Israel is wiped off the map.
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe just hit 4 million percent. Some people say it is only 165,000, but they are just being stupid. -Scott Adams, artist and writer of Dilbert
They don't want anyone feeling sorry for their civilians, they want people saying "Oh shit! Oh shit! Oh shit! Oh shit! We can't declare war on them, they'll destroy us."
atheistheretic wrote:They don't want anyone feeling sorry for their civilians, they want people saying "Oh shit! Oh shit! Oh shit! Oh shit! We can't declare war on them, they'll destroy us."
I don't think anybody has illusions of beating the U.S. in a one on one fight.
atheistheretic wrote:They don't want anyone feeling sorry for their civilians, they want people saying "Oh shit! Oh shit! Oh shit! Oh shit! We can't declare war on them, they'll destroy us."
I don't think anybody has illusions of beating the U.S. in a one on one fight.
atheistheretic wrote:They don't want anyone feeling sorry for their civilians, they want people saying "Oh shit! Oh shit! Oh shit! Oh shit! We can't declare war on them, they'll destroy us."
I don't think anybody has illusions of beating the U.S. in a one on one fight.
Guerrilla fighters do. In fact, that's the only way they can, short of maybe China/Russia turning suddenly hostile.
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe just hit 4 million percent. Some people say it is only 165,000, but they are just being stupid. -Scott Adams, artist and writer of Dilbert
atheistheretic wrote:They don't want anyone feeling sorry for their civilians, they want people saying "Oh shit! Oh shit! Oh shit! Oh shit! We can't declare war on them, they'll destroy us."
I don't think anybody has illusions of beating the U.S. in a one on one fight.
Russia vs US no nukes. That would epic, especially for all us Risk Fans
atheistheretic wrote:They don't want anyone feeling sorry for their civilians, they want people saying "Oh shit! Oh shit! Oh shit! Oh shit! We can't declare war on them, they'll destroy us."
I don't think anybody has illusions of beating the U.S. in a one on one fight.
Al-Qaeda?
Al-Qaeda's strategy is actually to move from place to place, letting us follow and expend large amounts of resources stopping them, slowly bankrupting ourselves bit by bit.
atheistheretic wrote:They don't want anyone feeling sorry for their civilians, they want people saying "Oh shit! Oh shit! Oh shit! Oh shit! We can't declare war on them, they'll destroy us."
I don't think anybody has illusions of beating the U.S. in a one on one fight.
Al-Qaeda?
Al-Qaeda's strategy is actually to move from place to place, letting us follow and expend large amounts of resources stopping them, slowly bankrupting ourselves bit by bit.
aka, guerrilla warfare. It's a war of attrition, and the only way you can combat a war of attrition is a series of very decisive victories. The trouble is getting the right people in the right places at the right time to make those victories possible, and you never know for certain who has the best answers.
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe just hit 4 million percent. Some people say it is only 165,000, but they are just being stupid. -Scott Adams, artist and writer of Dilbert
heavycola wrote:i can't believe you sheeple all ignored the nanowyrms.
me either...
Ditocoaf wrote:Al-Qaeda's strategy is actually to move from place to place, letting us follow and expend large amounts of resources stopping them, slowly bankrupting ourselves bit by bit.
Juan_Bottom wrote:
Frigidus wrote:
atheistheretic wrote:They don't want anyone feeling sorry for their civilians, they want people saying "Oh shit! Oh shit! Oh shit! Oh shit! We can't declare war on them, they'll destroy us."
I don't think anybody has illusions of beating the U.S. in a one on one fight.
Al-Qaeda?
Al-Qaeda's strategy is actually to move from place to place, letting us follow and expend large amounts of resources stopping them, slowly bankrupting ourselves bit by bit.
jbrettlip wrote:They are hardly winning. That is just silly. Hiding in caves and sending retarded women to suicide bomb is not winning.
They're winning if you realize what winning is in their perspective. They want to destroy the west, and they obviously can't do it through brute force. So what better way than to bankrupt it through endless wars of attrition until their own people can't take it anymore and force the change in policy.
That's how we won against Britain, and that's how Al-Quaeda will win against us, if we let them.
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe just hit 4 million percent. Some people say it is only 165,000, but they are just being stupid. -Scott Adams, artist and writer of Dilbert
heavycola wrote:i can't believe you sheeple all ignored the nanowyrms.
I ignored them because I decided not to pursue a silly tinfoil hat argument in the middle a serious argument.
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe just hit 4 million percent. Some people say it is only 165,000, but they are just being stupid. -Scott Adams, artist and writer of Dilbert
