Labs Compete to Build New Nuclear Bomb

An anonymous reader writes "Yahoo! News is reporting that two labs are currently competing to design the first new nuclear bomb in twenty years. The new bomb was approved as a part of the 2006 defense spending bill. From the article: 'Proponents of the project say the U.S. would lose its so-called "strategic deterrent" unless it replaces its aging arsenal of about 6,000 bombs, which will become potentially unreliable within 15 years. A new, more reliable weapon, they say, would help the nation reduce its stockpile.'"

Not a true increase in stockpile

[ween14]

People need to read the article more closely. They aren't working on these new weapons to increase the US stockpile of nukes, but just to maintain it. They are trying to create safer and more stable nukes that can be kept for long periods of time without the problems we have with current nukes. Then they plan to replace, not add to, the current nuclear stockpile with these new weapons. I am not making a judgement here on whether nukes are good or bad at all, but if the only choice is between unsafe and unstable nuclear weapons and more stable ones I will take the stable ones anyday.

Bear in mind...

[ThousandStars]

That the US already has a sufficient number of nuclear weapons to annihilate the planet; combined with Russia we have more than a enough weapons to make the planet fit only for spiders and bugs. The issue is a) whether the US will maintain that number and b) whether we have weapons appropriate for counterforce measures. The weapons we have now are actually over-, rather than under-powered. Do we raelly want to use hydrogen bombs against North Korea under any circumstances? The answer is no in the foreseeable future.

For example, one possible use for US nuclear weapons is a strike against hardened targets in North Korea. At the moment we don't really have appropriate bombs for that purpose. If North Korea started lobbing nuclear weapons, we'd want to take as many out on the ground as possible. The current arsenal is poorly suited for that purpose.

Also remember that the only way the US can credibly deter others from using nuclear weapons is to convince those others that the US is willing and able to strike back. Building new weapons is part of that plan.

For more on the aspect of prevention and counterforce, you could read The Wizards of Armageddon [amazon.com], which is about how such issues played out in the 50's - 80's. Building new nuclear weapons is business-as-usual rather than a radical departure.

Re:fate of the old nukes?

[cuantar]

Nuclear weapons have two parts: the warhead, and a conventional explosive that starts the nuclear reaction. The "unreliable" part of the weapon is the conventional explosive; if it fails, there's no way to detonate the nuke. "Unreliable" may also mean "could accidentally go off," but this doesn't seem too feasible to me.

Livermore guys I worked with were experimenting with proton imaging about a year ago to help them figure out if there's not another way to test the conventional explosives than by taking them apart.

Re:AYBABTU

[Anonymous Coward]

are you becoming a bore to us?

Re:fission to fusion - NOPE its about SDAM not W87

[Anonymous Coward]

semi-correct - The feds merely want SURETY design of current SDAMs, not the less-than clean W87, even when configured to lowest yield.

refer to this anon post :

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=188401 &cid=15530064 [slashdot.org]

A really good SDAM can burn clean enough to leave very little long half life radiation behind.

Of course a N-bomb is even better (fallout wise), but useless for bunker busting.

Its not physics the feds want... its 'surety' for SDAMS.

Re:Remember Iran:

[AuMatar]

Even if they could, they wouldn't. Blow up the dome of the rock, the second most holy site in Islaam? Not going to happen.

Re:Remember Iran:

[darkonc]

They'd like nothing better than to turn the rest of us into "devout muslims".

No. They just don't want us to turn them into a bunch of Devout Christians -- or, worse yet, a bunch of dead Muslims.

The US has already forced a regime change in Iran in the early '60s -- It was fear of a repeat of that that led to the hostage taking in 1979. The US responded by trashing the political fortunes of every moderate (then) alive within Iran. Since then the US has been making noises about overthrowing their government (again).

Fears of the US trying again have intensified since Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, and started sabre-rattling at Iraq's neighbours.

It's a bit disappointing, but not a complete shock that Iran decided to push for a nuclear option. The US reneging on it's own non-proliferation responsibilities doesn't really help them (or any body else) feel safe about US intentions in the future.

Re:Remember Iran:

[MochaMan]

Mamood Ahmadi-Najad (president of Iran) denies the holocust happend and threatend Israel to be "wiped off the map"

They just threatened. The USA actually attacked Iraq.

To be perfectly clear, they didn't even go so far as to threaten to "wipe Israel off the map." No such idiom even exists in Persian [nytimes.com]. He did say he hoped its regime would collapse.

One should really blame poor translation and propagandists on that line.

Re:Old hat

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, now get out your tinfoil hats...

Unfortunately, I believe that the US already has such a device in case the world does not go the way that it wants.

Remember the cancelled Super-Conducting Super Collider of the early nineties? Cancelled my ass, more like militarised and relocated. CERN has had to build one on the Swiss-French border for the original scientific research purposes.

Google Earth or better yet Worldwind(USGS Urban Area shows the most detail) 38.678637N, 76.843057W from a 5Km altitude and down. Huge facility, suspiciously configured. (~5Km radius) Located on "Air Force Road" Washington DC at the junction of two rail lines, complete with parking for 5000 and what appears to be some kind of mining tailings pond.

Stop, hey what's that sound?

Re:Remember Iran:

[Rob Kaper]

One should really blame poor translation and propagandists on that line.

Actually, the conclusion of Brommer, after looking at translation issues, is that he very much did say so [iht.com], but that he didn't go as far as to declare war.

Re:Remember Iran:

[MiniMike]

Actually, Iran has done a lot more than threaten. They have funded and supported terrorists attacking Israel. This has resulted in the deaths of many Israelis, as well as Americans, Europeans, and others. Iran is also testing new medium range (I think) missiles, which are not used for defense.
The religious zealots in the USA are not in charge (although some of them think they are), and there's enough different factions of zealots to keep them from being too much of a threat.