How many Nukes do we need?

Straydog · 04-23-2003, 07:26 AM

Looks like we are going to be building more nuclear weapons.

Do as we say, ignore what we do?

The Fishing Geek · 04-23-2003, 07:35 AM

World domination can be SO much FUN!

lost_sailor · 04-23-2003, 07:42 AM

by Tom Lehrer

First we got the bomb, and that was good,
'Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's okay,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way.
Who's next?

Then France got the bomb, but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb, but have no fears,
'Cause they can't wipe us out for a least five years.
Who's next?

Japan will have its own device,
Transistorized at half the price.
South Africa wants two, that's right:
One for the black and one for the white.
Who's next?

Egypt's gonna get one too,
Just to use on you-know-who.
So Israel's getting tense,
Wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb.
Who's next?

Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.
Who's next?
Who's next?
Who's next?
Who's next??

Hoosier Daddy · 04-23-2003, 09:17 AM

Kind of looks like it is an effort to keep what we have "usable" due to aging, does that sum it up?

willametteriveroutlaw · 04-23-2003, 10:06 AM

Nuclear power is Good,
Nuclear bombs keep me up at night.
Whether people want to realize it or not, we are heading for trouble. Our President (even as a republican) is going throught the U.N. like a bull in a China shop. He has managed to sever ties with many countries and we run a real risk of being attacked again. Although this time it could be MUCH worse. Soon we aren't going to be the strongest Super Power in the world. China, and the E.U. will be.
Bottom Line our country needs to think about the repercussians (sp) of its actions. I am not advocating playcating to other countries, but using our power wisely.

The Fishing Geek · 04-23-2003, 10:56 AM

Nuclear power is great. It's just that bothersome issue of waste that gets people all worked up into a lather.

The Fishing Geek · 04-23-2003, 01:17 PM

The biggest nuclear concern that America has, in my opinion, cannot and will not be deterred by our own nuclear armament. There has been a great deal written about Soviet "suitcase nukes" that came up missing after the fall of the USSR, and the concept of them falling into the hands of a terrorist group is frightening.

There are a couple of things that the world learned from the Cold War: a rational person would never push the button, and buildup on one side will inevitably lead to a buildup on the other. I would hope that we would grow from that learning experience.

GutshotApe · 04-23-2003, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fishing Geek:
Nuclear power is great. It's just that bothersome issue of waste that gets people all worked up into a lather.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">No worries, Geek. We just take all that spent fuel and otherwise depleted uranium and make super-heavy armor-piercing ammo out of it. Our DU ammo supply has been seriously reduced in the last month...so we need to make more.

Next issue.

The Fishing Geek · 04-23-2003, 01:36 PM

We've got more than we know what to do with already.

Maybe that's what they should shoot those cougars with.

See? I can tie other threads in, too! :grin:

GutZ · 04-23-2003, 01:43 PM

This is really great. I appreciate all the well thought out answers. It really is good to know that there is a solution. Thank You. [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]

Seems to have worked pretty well for the last 60 years or so.

lost_sailor · 04-23-2003, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GutZ:

Seems to have worked pretty well for the last 60 years or so.

Cool Texan · 04-23-2003, 02:16 PM

LS, truly a sad chapter in our country's history. :depressed:

lost_sailor · 04-23-2003, 02:36 PM

But, still seems like it was probably the right decision ...

Too bad people can't just be nice.

Cool Texan · 04-23-2003, 03:48 PM

Right outcome, wrong tactic.

Boedy · 04-23-2003, 04:22 PM

I guess we should have just invaded Japans home Islands and taken the 1 million casualties instead of using the bombs?

GutshotApe · 04-23-2003, 05:43 PM

In 1945, a friend and one-time co-worker, now a retired logging foreman and grand parent from Crow, OR, was an 18-yr-old Marine on Okinawa preparing for the invasion of Japan when the atomic bombs were dropped....one of the million or so likely US casualties if the invasion had been necessary. There is no question in his mind whether or not Truman made the right decision...or in my mind either.

[ 04-23-2003, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]

Bigdog · 04-23-2003, 11:28 PM

The best ofense is a good defense. It really doesn't matter how many bombs we build soon enough everyone will have this same capability. We need a good defense to use a a deterent. Who know's maybe all of this is a lost cause no matter what we do.

Fast Water · 04-23-2003, 11:41 PM

I agree with you Geek.

If only we could be fusing

instead of fizing

.

pdxkevin · 04-24-2003, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GutZ:
Seems to have worked pretty well for the last 60 years or so.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">So does the flint lock rifle... They are still good rifles and will get the job done. But through advances in technology we can do things more efficeintly, cleaner, and more precisely.

I would think people would want a more controlled blast.

Pilar · 04-24-2003, 09:16 AM

Please read between the lines here. This announcement is to inform all that a new breeder reactor will be brought on line. The 'N' reactor at Hanford was shut down some time ago and another facility at Savanna river Georgia was too. It is probably not feasible to restart either reactor.

You could infer that new processing facilities will also be built and commissioned. Rocky Flats has been closed and is too contaminated and problematic to reopen. Weapons will probably not be built at Hanford either.

These weapons do not age, per se. The plutonium trigger has a pretty long 1/2 life. I think we probably have enough nukes now to destroy the entire planet several times over. We have only used 2 in the last 60yrs and we keep building the damn things.

Now for the rest of the story. The Tritium used in the H part of the H-bomb radioactively decays fairly quickly. The resulting isotope is a 'poison' to the fusion reaction. So as a result the Tritium in these nukes needs to be replaced periodically. Tritium is a byproduct of a breeder reactor whose main purpose is to convert U-238 (common non fissile uranium) to PU-239 (Plutonium).

Why are we going to allow our government to build yet another nuclear material processing facility, a reactor or reactors and allow the contamination of even more of our hinterlands?

Think about Rocky Flats in Colorado or Hanford in Washington, Oak Ridge in Tennessee and Savannah River in Georgia.

Where does it end?

Without safe radioactive waste disposal why are we creating more highly radioactive waste?

If it does not make sense to commission new power reactors (none built or started since 1977)why is it ok in the name of defense?