• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

U.S. Urged to Consolidate Nuclear Weapons

Fly Navy

...Great Job!
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
I envision the next step being aircraft parked wingtip to wingtip and ships being moored bow to stern. Did we learn nothing from Pearl Harbor?

http://www.newsday.com/news/politic...,2749604.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

U.S. Urged to Consolidate Nuclear Weapons

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer

July 15, 2005, 7:54 AM EDT

WASHINGTON -- The country's nuclear weapons plants and sensitive material such as plutonium should be consolidated at a single site to increase security and reduce targets for terrorists, a federal advisory task force says.

A report made public Thursday also urged the Energy Department to speed development of sturdier, more reliable nuclear warheads that can be maintained more easily and last longer. Such a program is in the early design stages.

The report by a special task force of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board has yet to be approved by the full board. But it is expected to weigh heavily in the future configuration of the governments nuclear weapons complex, including activities at three weapons design laboratories in New Mexico and California.

While such labs have been modernized, production facilities are "World War II era ... lacking in modern-day production technology and striving to optimize performance with antiquated equipment and facilities," the report said.

It recommended consolidating the most critical parts of the weapons complex, now spread across eight facilities, into a single site with "cutting edge nuclear component production, manufacturing and assembly technologies."

The report did not recommended a location, but said site selection should begin immediately.

The report also criticized the "broad distribution" of sensitive nuclear material such as plutonium and highly enriched uranium, which now is located at six of the eight major facilities.

This distribution, once considered a security advantage, now "increases the number of potential terrorist targets within this country, exposing the (weapons) complex and the surrounding civilian population to risk," according to the report.

It noted that when the weapons complex was designed, most of the sites were remote and relatively easy to secure. Today, residential and or commercial communities border most of them.

"The primary method for dealing with current and future terrorist threats to the complex is through the application of guards, guns and gates," the report said. It noted that such activities now account for nearly 15 percent of the weapon complex budget.

Citizen groups at a number of the weapons design and production facilities have argued that plutonium stockpiles should be removed from places such as the Livermore National Laboratory, which is in the heart of a residential area.

Plutonium and highly enriched uranium are needed for weapons design and other activities at Livermore. The lab has resisted removing all of such material, fearing its weapons work would have to be abandoned.

Energy Department spokesman Mike Waldron, noting that it was a draft report, said "it would premature to comment on specifics" until the public has had a chance to comment on the findings and the advisory panel has given its final approval.

In the mid-1990s, a panel of outside scientists recommended consolidating the three nuclear weapons labs, drawing opposition from the laboratories and members of Congress. The idea was rejected by then-Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary.

This recommendation also is expected to meet opposition.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., whose state is home to two of the three weapons labs, said in a statement, "We should not rush into any quick fixes."

Domenici said the spending bill for the Energy Department prohibits, for the now, the use of any money to put in place the advisory panel's recommendations.

The weapons facilities the task force looked at for consolidation were the three national labs -- Lawrence Livermore in California and Sandia and Los Alamos in New Mexico -- as well as the Savannah River complex in South Carolina, the Y-12 facility at Oak Ridge, Tenn., the Pantex facility in Texas, the Nuclear Test Site in Nevada and a non-nuclear facility in Kansas City.
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Ehh? Our nuclear warheads are designed by the Department of Energy?? :confused:
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
nittany03 said:
Ehh? Our nuclear warheads are designed by the Department of Energy?? :confused:
What do you think DOE does in Los Alamos?

Brett
 

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
Consolidate our Nukes ... ??? What an especially great idea, especially in light of the report today:

Chinese General Threatens U.S. Over Taiwan

Friday, July 15, 2005
service_ap_36.gif


BEIJING — A Chinese general said Beijing might respond with nuclear weapons if the United States attacked China in a conflict over Taiwan, news reports said Friday.

The State Department rejected the warning as "highly irresponsible."

The exchange could add to tensions with Washington at a time of U.S. worries about China's military buildup and the proposed takeover of the oil company Unocal Corp. by a Chinese state-run company.

"If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition into the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons," Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu, a dean at China's National Defense University, told visiting Hong Kong-based reporters. His remarks were reported by The Asian Wall Street Journal and The Financial Times.

My Kung Pao chicken just got a little hotter .....
 

petescheu

Registered User
I really don't understand what China thinks they would accomplish by using Nukes anyways. I mean seriously, when we retaliated, we could wipe the entire population of China off the face of the planet. M.A.D. anyone...?
 

gregsivers

damn homeowners' associations
pilot
shoo24 said:
I mean seriously, when we retaliated, we could wipe the entire population of China off the face of the planet. M.A.D. anyone...?

That would take care of part of "global warming" (not that I believe in it) and the demand for oil.

sorry for the threadjack
 

TurnandBurn55

Drinking, flying, or looking busy!!
None
shoo24 said:
I really don't understand what China thinks they would accomplish by using Nukes anyways. I mean seriously, when we retaliated, we could wipe the entire population of China off the face of the planet. M.A.D. anyone...?

It begs another question...

If we 'moved missiles into position'... say in Taiwan proper and they took them out with kiloton-level tactical nukes...

What would we accomplish by retaliating with megaton-level strategic nukes against their cities and industry? M.A.D anyone?

One gamble versus another... methinks any crisis in the Formosa Straits is a bad thing...
 

Steve Wilkins

Teaching pigs to dance, one pig at a time.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
No pain, no gain. We should make Taiwan a U.S. territory. China is in no positon to be shooting off tactical or strategic nukes. This certainly gives credence to why we are still pursuing ballistic missile defense using our ships.
 

eddie

Working Plan B
Contributor
cavalry_sabre.1.jpg
rattle.jpg
-ING

Now... analyze the mixed metaphor.


Steve Wilkins said:
China is in no positon to be shooting off tactical or strategic nukes.
Because they can't or because they would be stupid to?
 

Steve Wilkins

Teaching pigs to dance, one pig at a time.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Uhhh, my vote is for "stupid".....cause they certainly "can", but that doesn't mean they should.
 

Fly Navy

...Great Job!
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
Steve Wilkins said:
No pain, no gain. We should make Taiwan a U.S. territory. China is in no positon to be shooting off tactical or strategic nukes. This certainly gives credence to why we are still pursuing ballistic missile defense using our ships.

Yes sir, definitely.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
shoo24 said:
I really don't understand what China thinks they would accomplish by using Nukes anyways. I mean seriously, when we retaliated, we could wipe the entire population of China off the face of the planet. M.A.D. anyone...?
And that's exactly why none of what the blow hard Chinese General has to say means anything worth worrying about. It's called strategic deterrence and second strike capes - something we have, and the CHICOMS do not.m We've had a treaty WRT the status of Taiwan for decades and nothing has changed. Nobody will remember this in 48 hours anyway.

Brett
 

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
I have believed for many years that it is time to take the gloves off the Japanese and support them militarily and politically as they move to take their place as a Pacific counterbalance to the ChiComs and NK's.

The mood in Japan has been shifting toward a more robust military posture in the region for years and it's now accelerating toward a realignment of Japan's (rightful? proper?) place in Asia. The reason given by some Japanese to still be reticent about moving ahead aggressively is the constitution they have been laboring under since the end of WW2. The pacifist constitution ..... that prevented them in the past from even inflight refueling their F-4's (too aggressive!!) ..... that the good 'ol USA and General MacArthur imposed on them. But the situation has changed and we could use the help .....

Generals (and Admirals -- Chinese or otherwise) shooting off their mouths and creating a dustup is nothing new --- but if any here have actually studied the Chinese and their decades-old economic and military build-up --- the cause for concern with them and their intentions should be obvious. To dismiss them as a minimal threat is to repeat the mistakes that brought them south of the Yalu River in the Korean War. The Chinese always take the "long" view .....

Some quotes from The Chairman:
......"if the whole of Korea were occupied by the United States, and the Korean revolutionary forces were totally defeated, the U.S. aggressor would be more arrogant, and the whole situation in the Far East would be unfavorable (to us)."


....."if we did not send troops (to fight in Korea) ....the reactionary clamor at home and around the world would increase; it would be detrimental (to us) in every way ..."

You could almost substitute "Taiwan" for "Korea" in The Chairman's quotes of the period and they become just as pertinent today as in 1950. They saw the situation as larger than just a regional issue with Korea in the early '50's and they see with the same red-colored, revolutionalry lenses in the Taiwan Strait (and beyond) today .... It's more than just economics and trade to them --- always has been. In fact, if you believe they will not go to war with the U.S. because of "trade" .... then you are seriously deluding yourself. It is about maintaining the political control on the mainland (and beyond) , "face", China's manifest destiny, and centuries of being "held back" by the West ..... do some reading on the Chinese and how they see themselves in the great scheme of things in the Pacific.

One thing the ChiComs really DO sweat is a rearmed Japan. Perhaps we should get that "Red Sun" rising again ..... ???

F28.JPEG
 

gaijin6423

Ask me about ninjas!
**Pops knuckles**

Japan has long been seen as the recovering alcoholic of East Asia by the other countries in the theatre. After the types of things they did before and during WW2, Japan switching from an essentially passive military to an active one would agitate the entire region far more than China or North Korea already have. China specifically is scared absolutely sh!tless of the Japanese. Think that's BS? Consider what the Japanese have done previously, and now factor in that they have one of the world's largest economies. China sees an armed Japan as the one legitimate opposing force to it becoming THE regional superpower.

I have a pretty substantial background in Japan/Japanese politics (I'll spare you the details unless you want them), and while I don't think that it would be quite as simple as flipping a switch, rearming Japan is something that would not be difficult. My host father from the last time I was over there was a retired Japanese verision of the Vice CNO, and after lots and lots of scotch one night, he asked me what I thought about this very subject. It seems that popular support for an active military has been growing steadily over the last five years or so, mainly thanks to China and North Korea, but also for another reason. That being, Japan as a whole doesn't feel right to itself. It's like they've got something missing from their own national identity. Kind of hard to explain this esoteric crap this early (and this sober) to be honest. Suffice it to say that Japan wants to rearm, but that it will take some momentum to overcome the 60 years they've lived under Article 9 of their constitution.
 
Top