backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 43 comment(s) - last by Snuffalufagus.. on Jun 15 at 3:40 AM
The race is on!

The arms race during the Cold War featured the US and Soviet Union competing against one another to have a greater military force.  It looks like another arms race, except on a much more relaxing level, is on again.  The Los Alamos National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are competing to see which lab will be able to construct the first new nuclear bomb made in the United States in two decades.  In 2005, the "reliable replacement warhead" program was started to try and replace aging, unreliable bombs.  The new nuclear bomb has been under development for around a year in both labs. 

The designs from both labs must have the same explosive power as existing warheads in the US arsenal.  One of the goals of the contest is to have a new weapon that will not be as likely to accidentally detonate and one that will be much more secure than the weapons the US currently possesses.  Each laboratory's plans will be presented to the Nuclear Weapons Council with the council choosing a winner before 2007.

Interestingly enough, LANL also recently put out an announcement that the national laboratory is accepting proposals for the fastest supercomputer in the world, capable of operating at one petaflop -- significantly more than even the fastest supercomputers are capable of today.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Nifty
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/14/2006 8:37:48 AM , Rating: 1
Out with the old, in with the new. I wonder if they are also going to be working on developing a modern tactical nuke. Sure would be nice to be able to drop an area the size of a city block, and have all the destructive goodness of a nuke. But nonetheless this is a good thing, time to get rid of the ones that aren't as safe to store and use, in favor of newer ones that are much safer to store and use. With all these nutjobs around the world today like N.Korea, it wouldn't hurt to remind them exactly who can do what to who. What was it? "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Yea I think that pretty much sums it up.




RE: Nifty
By Stele on 6/14/2006 8:51:04 AM , Rating: 3
Interesting news, to say the least. It's a bit odd though, that while we rain fire and brimstone on any country that takes any step that may even remotely lead to building nuclear weapons, we happily build some spanking new ones of our own - and have some fun by organising a competition to do so too. Such a policy would probably come across as double standards to other countries and is possibly a reason some don't take our threats seriously... it's just a case of pot calling the kettle black.

If we mean to rid the world of nukes no nation should have any at all - least of all simply because one nation self-proclaims it to be the Good and Righteous One. To use nukes just to rattle sabres would only provoke belligerent nations further - hell if we nuke 'em we would kill a few hundred thousand people who probably aren't very well off in life in all senses of the word (economically, socially, politically etc). If they just drop one warhead on Seattle or New York it'd be pandemonium. Back a rat into a corner and watch it bite - it's got nothing left to lose.

The supercomputer is not too surprising, given its traditional and prominent role in simulation nuclear explosions. Their importance in this field grew exponentially after the moratoriums on live test detonations... now the behaviour of various warhead designs could be tested, measured and tweaked without as much as a boom and perhaps even more accurately than with live tests. The more powerful the computer, the faster it can model the explosion, and more accurately too because it can compute and handle more variables and parameters simultaneously.


RE: Nifty
By shadowzz on 6/14/2006 8:58:25 AM , Rating: 2
You know if we had radiation scrubbers like in GITS, I honestly don't think nuclear proliferation would even occur at all. The horrifying part about nukes is that they make everything problematic in the long run -- not so much the fact that the initial destuctive force is overwhelming.

True, a nuke could take out a city - but honestly where is the need for something like that, ever? And at what insane cost too (materials, know-how, etc). If a terrorist wanted to take out a city its a hell of a lot easier to get an areosal can full of anthrax.

In any case, radiation scrubbers would effectively eliminate the need for nukes overnight I think. Now someone go invent some nanomachines capable of scrubbing radiation.


RE: Nifty
By fungry on 6/14/2006 10:53:38 AM , Rating: 2
ermmm the pricing of uranium [used in nukes] is extroadinarily cheaper then purchasing TNT and other bomb substances.

Uranium is cheap compared to other things. Which is why US presidents such as kennedy and nixon and such, did such campaigns to help boost their votes. treaties like Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and Nuclear Utilisation Treaty (NUT)


RE: Nifty
By Samus on 6/14/2006 12:21:09 PM , Rating: 4
Why the hell are we still concentrating on building WMD's and not putting dollars into research and preparation for global warming.

All this money and research time is needed elsewhere. In 2030 we're all ganna be fux0red.


RE: Nifty
By masher2 (blog) on 6/14/2006 12:44:50 PM , Rating: 2
Probably because anthropomorphic global warming is a nonproven notion very much still in debate and, even if proven, may very well turn out to be more beneficial than harmful.

And, FYI, regardless of whether the warming is natural or man-induced, no one is going to be "fuxored" in 2030. Possibly 2100, if the alarmists are correct.


RE: Nifty
By TheDoc9 on 6/14/2006 12:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
If gloabal warming ever becomes a real problem, I'm sure it will move up in priority.

Just because some celebrities say it's an issue, doesn't mean anything. And if they ever quote a scientist, ask them "what scientist? Can I talk to him/them?" Good luck with that one.

And if they bring up the Artic ice cap, try looking at the south pole, you might just notice it increasing in size. These things tend to happen, and looking at NASA photos shows the North pole changing all the time, sometimes it's smaller, sometimes it's larger.

I think if the money is spent on anything else, it should be on a TV campaign telling all the facts.


RE: Nifty
By masher2 (blog) on 6/14/2006 1:05:47 PM , Rating: 2
> "And if they bring up the Artic ice cap, try looking at the south pole, you might just notice it increasing in size"

Let's not forget the entire Arctic ice cap could melt, and not change sea levels by one millimeter.

> "And if they ever quote a scientist, ask them "what scientist? Can I talk to him/them?" Good luck with that one."

You can find scientists who believe global warming is a problem. The problem is you can find just as many that believe it isn't. And both camps disagree on how much, if any, of that warming is actually caused of human activity.




RE: Nifty
By masher2 (blog) on 6/14/2006 9:24:19 AM , Rating: 3
> "If we mean to rid the world of nukes no nation should have any at all "

You have to face certain facts. Any nation that obtains nuclear weapons cannot be forced to surrender them. Not with any acceptable degree of risk, at least. If we don't strongly fight nuclear weapon proliferation, then at some point every nation on earth will have them....as well as quite a few rebel organizations, seperatist movements, and terrorist groups. That means those weapons will be used..and on civilian populations. Is that what you wish?

The US has shown itself a responsible steward of nuclear weapons. Its only use of them was designed to save lives...and save lives it did. It has also acted to control proliferation, and to safeguard its own devices from being improperly used. Excepting Great Britain, no other nuclear nation has acted so responsibly.

Before the US developed nuclear weapons, the world was engaging in ever-larger and bloodier global conflicts. Since that time, there have been nothing but small regional conflicts. And even those conflicts which the US has engaged in, it has refrained from using nuclear force...even if it meant losing the conflict.

One can naively opine the world should just "abandon nukes", but this isn't going to happen. The nuclear club will only grow over time. It would behoove us to slow that growth as much as humanly possible.

> "To use nukes just to rattle sabres would only provoke belligerent nations further"

An action the US has never taken...it has never threatened a nuclear attack to "rattle sabres". Something the Soviet Union, China, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan can't say. Offhand, I don't believe France has either...but then again, they did have a renegade General once threaten Paris with nuclear attack, so I'd count them out of the "responsible nuclear club" membership in any case.


RE: Nifty
By shadowzz on 6/14/2006 9:25:49 AM , Rating: 2
!!!! masher!!!


Not really
By Griswold on 6/14/2006 10:28:52 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The US has shown itself a responsible steward of nuclear weapons. Its only use of them was designed to save lives...and save lives it did. It has also acted to control proliferation, and to safeguard its own devices from being improperly used. Excepting Great Britain, no other nuclear nation has acted so responsibly.


I'm not going to comment on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki part, but I'll give you a few facts to think about:

During the cold war, the US (like the USSR) tested nuclear weapons like a child playing with lego. They had, for example, this braindead idea of using it as a tool to excavate soil for construction purposes, they tested the after-blast effects, both psychological and physical, on their own soldiers, they paved pacific atolls with bombs that surpassed their wildest dreams in terms of destruction capability and conducted high altitude blasts as if they're playing with fireworks rockets.

You also forgot to mention france. They didnt do anything the US, USSR, GB or China didnt do before.

You know, not using them against your enemies isnt the only factor of acting responsible when it comes to WMD.

quote:
Before the US developed nuclear weapons, the world was engaging in ever-larger and bloodier global conflicts. Since that time, there have been nothing but small regional conflicts. And even those conflicts which the US has engaged in, it has refrained from using nuclear force...even if it meant losing the conflict.


While it is a fact that the US has not used any nukes (nor did any of the other nuclear powers) since 1945, they have been closer to it than anyone else (maybe besides the USSR). Nixon was pretty determined to use nukes during the vietnam war and it was only thanks to his generals that he didnt give the order.

And where are we today? The pentagon wants small nukes that can be used anytime anywhere without a huge mushroom cloud. But do you, just for a second, think that these weapons dont have any effects on future generations? Dont you think these weapons will lower the inhibition threshold for using nuclear weapons? Is that responsible? Isnt it enough to be able to eradicate any given enemy with the current stockpile?

Do you seriously think the US acted responsible with their WMD in the past, just because they didnt use them against their enemies? Is that what you call responsible?

Just for the record, I'm the last to say "do away with them nukes". It wont work. We opened this pandoras box 60 years ago and we will never be able to close it again. I actually accept that countries like the US, GB, France and (with some reservation due to instabilities) Russia and China have these weapons because it will keep certain powers at bay.

I see it as a safeguard for human nature. Once something has been invented, you cant stop everybody from using it.


RE: Not really
By masher2 (blog) on 6/14/2006 10:47:39 AM , Rating: 3
> "You also forgot to mention france. They didnt do anything the US, USSR, GB or China didnt do before."
You mean, besides having to blow up a nuclear warhead, to keep it out of the hands of a revolting General, who was threatening to use it on Paris?

I would mention France's sales of nuclear technology to Iraq, a transfer which would have allowed them nuclear weapons in the 1980s, were it not for the Osiraq raid...but then, we did the same for Israel, so I suppose thats a draw.

> The US...has been closer to [using nukes] than anyone else...

No. Israel takes that title....it had active, armed warheads rolled out to launch during the Yom Kippur War. Had the battle not turnd their way, they would have used them.

Quite arguably, the Soviets were much closer to using them than were we, especially given disclosures from their recent archives...but you ceded that possibility, so lets skip them. That still leaves North Korea, which by all accounts is ready to unleash nuclear fire at the first hint of conventional attack. I can also mention China, which has been stealthily transfering nuclear know-how to Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, and many other nations.


RE: Not really
By shadowzz on 6/14/2006 10:57:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No. Israel takes that title....it had active, armed warheads rolled out to launch during the Yom Kippur War. Had the battle not turnd their way, they would have used them.


Again, quoting history channel here, but I remember the USSR almost accidentally launched a nuke after a Swedish rocket test signalled an alert. The USSR was literally seconds away from launching a nuke on accident. Someone with more time than me can certainly find the reference.


RE: Not really
By shadowzz on 6/14/2006 11:01:12 AM , Rating: 2
It was 1995 I suppose:
http://www.comeclean.org.uk/articles.php?articleID...

In any case, read some of these other ones:
http://www.ask.ne.jp/~hankaku/english/np11y.html

there have been a lot of close calls.


RE: Not really
By Griswold on 6/14/2006 11:11:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You mean, besides having to blow up a nuclear warhead, to keep it out of the hands of a revolting General, who was threatening to use it on Paris?


Yes, I've seen that movie too.

quote:
I would mention France's sales of nuclear technology to Iraq, a transfer which would have allowed them nuclear weapons in the 1980s, were it not for the Osiraq raid...but then, we did the same for Israel, so I suppose thats a draw.


There were many more countries involved in a potential sale of nuclear technology (not specifically nuclear weapons technology) to iraq. On a sidenote, the US wholesale of chemical and biological raw materials to the middle east (especially to iraq to battle iran) in the 80s was also interesting...

At least you mention israel and the fact that the US gave them ready to use WMDs.

quote:
No. Israel takes that title....it had active, armed warheads rolled out to launch during the Yom Kippur War. Had the battle not turnd their way, they would have used them.


Cuba Missile crisis? Ring a bell? Granted, that involved both the US and USSR, but the bombers were already airborne. However, Nixon still had plans in the drawer to nuke away on north vietnam. So, thats at least a 2:1 victory for the US in that department.

Anyhow, my original point was responsible use (or lack thereof) of WMDs. Too bad you didnt comment on that. None of the countries in possession of these weapons has been responsible all the time, be it war times or during peace, including and the US - they are right up there with all the bad guys from that era.



RE: Not really
By masher2 (blog) on 6/14/2006 11:35:18 AM , Rating: 1
> "There were many more countries involved in a potential sale of nuclear technology (not specifically nuclear weapons technology) to iraq."

But the US was not among the ones transferring nuclear weapons technology to Iraq. France wasn't the only culprit...but they were the primary one. And the fact other nations were involved as well makes my point for me.

> "At least you mention israel and the fact that the US gave them ready to use WMDs."

No we didn't. We gave them vast amounts of technology, raw materials, and turned a blind eye to their efforts (and their theft of what little we held back)....but we didn't give them "ready to use WMDs".

> "Nixon still had plans in the drawer to nuke away on north vietnam. "

Contingency planning means nothing. I'm sure the US military has drawn up plans for everything from a sea invasion of Ireland to a nuclear attack on the Panama Canal. That doesn't imply such plans were ever seriously considered, much less about to be deployed. Comparing Nixon's bandying about of a possible nuclear option in Vietnam to Israel's decision to roll out armed missiles in the heat of a battle-- with given field-level commanders launch rights in case of disrupted communications-- is far off the mark.

> "Anyhow, my original point was responsible use (or lack thereof) of WMDs. Too bad you didnt comment on that"

Too bad you ignored the original point entirely, which is regardless of our own use of WMDs, it behooves us to restrict their widespread proliferation.


RE: Nifty
By Xenoid on 6/14/2006 1:57:48 PM , Rating: 2
On Global warming, I think all the fanatics need to build a time machine and stop the global warming done by the wooly mammoths in the last ice age because clearly they were driving too many cars.

As for WMD, that's just Americans being typical Americans. "God bless America" is perfectly fine, welcomed actually! But "Allah Ackbar" is terrorist-talk and those people don't believe in god so we should shoot their turban asses.


RE: Nifty
By White Widow on 6/14/2006 9:26:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's a bit odd though, that while we rain fire and brimstone on any country that takes any step that may even remotely lead to building nuclear weapons...


Why is that odd? Please explain to me why we should tolerate or encourage other nations to develop such destructive weapons simply because we have them. I'm not saying it's right or good, but the world is not inherently right or just, and I'm sure you don't believe it is, either. In a perfert world there should be no hypocracy, inequality, suffering, etc. But that is definitley NOT the world we all live in. The bottom line is that nuclear weapons are a huge threat, and whether you think the US should or should not have them is irrelevent because we do. And since we already do, why should that in any way affect our policy of discouraging other nations from acquiring the same technology? Is it "fair"? I don't know, but "fair" is hardly the foundation of the modern world. Do you think Iran or North Korea will be "fair" in their use of nuclear weapons with Israel and South Korea? And again, given that we already have nuclear weapons and don't seem too intent on just giving them up, do you think the world would be better if Iran and North Korea had nuclear weapons? Just because they "can" build them, does it mean they "should."?

Quite frankly, it seems "odd" to me that we would not make every effort to prevent that from happening. Is it in some way hypocritical? Sure. Does that make it the wrong thing to do? I don't think so.


RE: Nifty
By bpurkapi on 6/14/2006 12:44:15 PM , Rating: 2
We have them, and proliferated them. In all honesty nukes have always been a way to deal with a conflict, think about it this way...
The US and USSR had to negotiate because they both had nukes, the US didn't have to negotiate with N.Vietnam because it had no nukes. Just having nukes puts you at the bargaining table rather than the battlefield. There are certain countries which realize this and in order to maintain their regimes they seek the security that nukes bring, N. Korea for example. When Iran gets their nukes Israel will have to negotiate with them, because they are more or less equals in terms of destructive power.
Nevermind morality(it is important) but this is power politics at its most extreme and for the United States to be able to negotiate with beligerant nations it needs some degree of leverage, nukes alter the equation, it is in our best interest to not see nukes proliferate.


RE: Nifty
By Legolias24 on 6/14/2006 12:48:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just because they "can" build them, does it mean they should?
The answer to this is 'no they shouldn't!'

And following the aforementioned logic; why should the US build new nuclear weapons? I mean you're right in that a lot of nations shouldn't have nuclear weapons. But just because the US can build a better bomb, doesn't mean that they should!

My biggest concern here is that the very action of building a new kind of nuke will increase another countries desire to build one for themselves, with the possibility of another arms race occuring. (it's a bit of stretch but hey, it could happen! :P )

Why not put more effort into developing better counter measures to a nuclear launch, or as one other poster mentioned, focus on ways of cleaning up nuclear disasters. Why must we be so hell bent on finding newer and faster ways of killing eachother.

If we could find a way to make all nuclear bombs duds before they are armed and detonated, then the point of having them would become moot and any threats associated with using nuclear weapons will be empty!

Cheers!

Eric








RE: Nifty
By masher2 (blog) on 6/14/2006 1:10:01 PM , Rating: 2
> "with the possibility of another arms race occuring. (it's a bit of stretch but hey, it could happen! :P ) "

You said it, not me. It's a stretch, to say the least. But hey, if this motivates another nation that already has nukes to make them safer and more reliable...I'm all for it.

> "Why not put more effort into developing better counter measures to a nuclear launch"

We've been trying to do that since the early 1980s. Unfortunately, those efforts have, in large, part, been delayed or stymied by people who feel the world is somehow safer when civilian cities are totally defenseless to nuclear attack.


RE: Nifty
By exdeath on 6/14/2006 10:19:42 AM , Rating: 2
It's not a double standard. We are not making secrets about it and our government is not promising to "wipe anyone off the map."


RE: Nifty
By creathir on 6/14/2006 4:18:51 PM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately the rest of the world operates in something we like to call reality.

Idealism is great, but you need to sometimes take a step back and apply your idealistic ideas to real world realities.

It would be fantastic if every country would give up their nuclear weapons, but it just will not happen. Why you ask? Because one country has a massive conventional weapon, so the other country needs to out due this weapon to give it an advantage... Now what is the basis of all of this? Usually, borders, values, or natural resources.

In your cream puff vision of the world, there would be no fights, murders, thefts, or any other crime against humanity.

The problem with this, is that one mans values are not another’s. What you may hold as valuable, such as, adult human life, another may not.

I am afraid a utopia is something that is quite impossible, so give up on the idea.

As far as pandemonium, I'm not sure what corner you want to go weep in, but down here in Texas, when an injustice is committed against us, we do not back down from the fight.

We stand tall, and hit back... HARD.

The rest of the country has always been like this. Imagine... what do you think went through the minds of the pilots as they bombed the USS Arizona? Do you think they thought to themselves "Those Americans are going to back down... this will show them not to mess with Japan..."

Yeah... that was a good move, wasn't it?

What was the result? Oh yeah... nuclear weapons... being used... for the first time...
Did they work? Did it show Japan just how they had crippled the United States? I really do not think that message was one that was conveyed with the dropping of those two weapons.

How about that bright Tuesday morning in September of 2001? All 19 of those men thought they were going to put America in her place that day...

2 countries later, THOUSANDS of terrorists killed... do you think the United States got the message those 4 airplanes were trying to convey? I don't.

- Creathir


Humbug
By Griswold on 6/14/2006 9:49:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
One of the goals of the contest is to have a new weapon that will not be as likely to accidentally detonate and one that will be much more secure than the weapons the US currently possesses.


None of the currently US deployed nuclear weapons are in any shape or form likely to just detonate. The "fuse" on these weapons have been continously improved over the decades to avoid just that - something you can do without designing a new weapon.

There are other reasons to design new weapons, most of them are none you want the world to know about though...




RE: Humbug
By shadowzz on 6/14/2006 9:54:25 AM , Rating: 2
It's been a while since I've seen a nuke, but I was pretty sure I saw on H-channel or something that these things were designed to have the fuses integrated into the design ... meaning once the fuse deteriorates (it will after X years by design) the nuke is totally useless. I was pretty sure the program mentioned that the engineers designed it that way so no one accidentally dug one up 50 years later and used it.


RE: Humbug
By exdeath on 6/14/2006 10:33:54 AM , Rating: 2
There isn't really a 'fuse' so to speak, its a complex electronic ignition system using HMX as the main charge and electronic detonators with very stable and long shelf life primary explosives in the detonators.

The main problem with older nukes is the half life of tritium (hydrogen 3) is like 12 years. The solution was to use a lithium deturide (deuterium = hydrogen 2) which has a longer half life and produces the required tritium on site during detonation after it undergoes neutron bombardment from the initial fission reaction and resulting fusion chain reaction.

Not sure how long the lithium deturide lasts though before needing to be replaced. 40-50 years?


RE: Humbug
By Griswold on 6/14/2006 10:55:04 AM , Rating: 2
Beat me to it.


RE: Humbug
By shadowzz on 6/14/2006 11:02:27 AM , Rating: 4
christ there are a lot of nuclear physicians on this board. Either that or some of you have some realy twisted hobbies.


RE: Humbug
By kattanna on 6/14/2006 11:18:58 AM , Rating: 2
building a nuke isnt really all that hard.

the only real "hard part" is getting the plutonium.



RE: Humbug
By masher2 (blog) on 6/14/2006 11:23:02 AM , Rating: 2
> "Not sure how long the lithium deturide lasts though before needing to be replaced. 40-50 years? "

Deuterium is nonradioactive; it has no half-life. Lithium Deuteride is also (mostly) chemically stable.

However, you're confusing the usages here a bit. Tritium compounds were briefly used as the primary fuel for staged thermonuclear warheads...they have long since been supplanted by lithium deuteride. Tritium's primary use today is, however, in boosted-fission devices, which are much smaller, lighter, and more radiation-resistant, and thus the most common choice for missile-mounted warheads.


RE: Humbug
By masher2 (blog) on 6/14/2006 11:00:59 AM , Rating: 2
> "None of the currently US deployed nuclear weapons are in any shape or form likely to just detonate. The "fuse" on these weapons have been continously improved"

The risk isn't due to a fuse malfunction, its innate to the the so-called "physics package" of the device. When exposed to an external neutron flux, or a high-compression event (external explosion) there is a very slight but still nonzero chance.

Miminizing this risk further is a design goal of the new warhead...but there are other, more important goals. Maximizing safety during the manufacturing and assembly process, greater device longevity, less need for maintenance, testing, and verification, etc, etc. Essentially, the goal is a unit with very long 'shelf life', meaning we can meet detterent goals with a smaller, more reliable (and thus safer) nuclear arsenal.




Business as usual
By Ringold on 6/14/2006 4:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
A few blue-teamers line up with comments that can be generalized as "Can't we at least shake hands before readying the nukes? and "Instead of shoring up a nuclear program that can already wipe out the world several times over and insure that roachs really do inherit the Earth, we could send a million engineers to college on a free ride.."

A few red-teamers line up with "We've got to be absolutely sure we can nuke straight to hell every square inch of the Middle East and East Asia five times over, just in case terrorists manage to sneak in to 4/5 our silo's and all our 'boomer' submarines" and "global warming? Damn god-hating liberals, what next, thinking we all come from monkeys?!"

Meanwhile, absolutely no decent agenda gets moved forward and corruption floods both parties behind the scenes since nobody can get truly motivated over anything at all (except banning gay marriage?).

I personally lose no sleep over China having a handfull of nukes, or North Korea which I wouldn't be surprised if they had one or two already. Even Iran, because at the end of the day when you look past all the bitching going both ways, they aren't stupid, they know they could take out London but before their missiles had even left their airspace a thousand more would be heading towards them. It's a non-issue, created to "stir the" red "base" and further annoy the "blue base".

On global warming, if avgas wasn't so expensive (well its not but the rental places charge like it is), I'd be happy to take anyone flying over central Florida and point out any number of things from Vero Beach to Cross City that have over just the past few years gone from bad to absolutely crappy. Global warming is subtle its feedback just begets more rapid warming. Taking down half the state's wetlands for the sake of single family homes and pavement instead of a few square acres for high-rise condo's.. Blue or red, I think you'd have to be retarded not to see the effects. It's all the more clear from the sky because it removes the idea that cities are just isolated "heat islands" as some Republican scientists try to call them. Look to the West and you see Tampa's skyline and the Gulf, look to the East and you see Cocoa and Kennedy's Assembly Building, with ribbons of roads cities and almost nonstop housing inbetween.. getting worse every year. Where do republicans think clean water comes from, does concrete filter it? Clean air? Anything else?

This threads progressed just like any other. Polarization, no consensus, and the quotation of "scientists" paid or motivated to put out either very alarmist or very comforting studies. Nevermind that "most" accept global warming as fact (where the debate is how fast and how bad).. it's just like ID nuts finding that one of a million biologist that thinks God snapped his fingers and here we all were.




RE: Business as usual
By ss284 on 6/14/2006 4:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I personally lose no sleep over China having a handfull of nukes, or North Korea which I wouldn't be surprised if they had one or two already. Even Iran, because at the end of the day when you look past all the bitching going both ways, they aren't stupid, they know they could take out London but before their missiles had even left their airspace a thousand more would be heading towards them. It's a non-issue, created to "stir the" red "base" and further annoy the "blue base".
quote:


You totally ignore the insane leverage nuclear power gives to any country that possesses them. If North Korea begins a ground invasion of South Korea, what is your supposed plan of attack? Before, it would be trade sanctions, UN intervention then a ground based war until China complained. With nuclear weapons, a ground war between the US and NK will risk nuclear weapons usage.


RE: Business as usual
By masher2 (blog) on 6/14/2006 5:48:15 PM , Rating: 1
> "I personally lose no sleep over China having a handfull of nukes, or North Korea..."

No, you leave that job to others...and you'll be first in line screaming for their heads when those nukes are finally used. How utterly predictable.

Note I say "when", not if. It may not be China, or North Korea...but some nation, somewhere, will eventually launch a nuclear attack on the US. That much should be obvious from history. It may be five years or five hundred...but it will happen. You can't close Pandora's box.

> "Taking down half the state's wetlands for the sake of single family homes..."

This is something that really pushes my buttons. 150 years ago, nearly the entire state of Florida was a vast disease-ridden swamp, totally unfit for human habitation. Malaria-- virtually unheard of in the nation today-- was widespread and lethal to the state's miniscule population. This was all changed by one of the grandest and most succesful civil engineering projects in US history. The state-- which in 1860 contained nothing but a few small towns, became one of the fastest-growing states in the nation, with a thriving, booming economy. Malaria was wiped out, along with a dozen other tropical diseases.

Now, driven by the soft-headed group of environmentalists, the state is busily engaged in reversing much of those results. Yes, hard as it is to believe, Florida is actively converting millions of acres of useful land into unproductive, dangerous swamplands. And spending tens of billions of dollars of state and federal tax money to do so. All under the misguided notion that this "natural" state is more preferable.

Truth is stranger than fiction.


RE: Business as usual
By masher2 (blog) on 6/14/2006 5:49:57 PM , Rating: 2
> "Nevermind that "most" accept global warming as fact (where the debate is how fast and how bad).."

Actually, the largest debate is centered around "how much, if any, is caused by humans" and "will it continue or will cooling set in naturally".


it IS a doublestandart
By Loser on 6/14/2006 12:44:15 PM , Rating: 2
its not a double standart coz USA(and others) critisize other countries trying to make their own nuclear bombs
it is a DS coz US is MAKING new ones. what kind of pathetic excuse is "we are replacing them" or i like other one even more "cheaper"
if they are old and become dangerous GET RID OF THEM. there are plenty safe ways which USA or any other country can choose from.
and whats that BS someone was talking about terrorist?? since when do terrorists have their own country? u cant just drop a nuke and have "some collateral damage".
nukes are best weapons for terrorists. no other sain country will ever actually start a war with a nuke coz the whole world will wipe them out within hours (and that whithout a nuke mind you)




RE: it IS a doublestandart
By creathir on 6/14/2006 4:06:16 PM , Rating: 2
You must have just stopped thinking... didn't really complete your thought.

You are right, we need a double standard because of unstable countries like Iran which may give the weapons to the likes of... terrorists!
- Creathir


wonderful
By Armorize on 6/14/2006 7:17:07 PM , Rating: 2
awesome so lets build more nukes with more nuclear waste yay! makes me wonder if were going to kill ourselves before someone(thing) else does...




RE: wonderful
By masher2 (blog) on 6/14/2006 9:39:41 PM , Rating: 2
> "I wonder how the USA would react if the Canada said they were building nuclear weapons"

Canada? We wouldn't care in the least. Unlike Iraq and North Korea, we wouldn't have to worry about Canada selling them to terrorists, or using them to decimate a few million civilians without cause.

> "awesome so lets build more nukes with more nuclear waste yay!"

Quick trivia question....how many people have died from the waste generated from nuclear arms manufacturer. Now, how many people die from slipping and falling in the bathtub each year.

Now for the bonus. Which of those two numbers is several hundred times larger than the other?




we deserve to die
By Serifan on 6/14/2006 7:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
god I hate the american government! hey lets start a war with a country because they might be building nukes and now the usa is building brand new ones! that shit is wrong.





RE: we deserve to die
By Snuffalufagus on 6/15/2006 3:40:30 AM , Rating: 2
Little bitches should be glad they can make stupid posts and thank the government for making it possible.


By UsernameX on 6/14/2006 11:30:35 AM , Rating: 2
Can't we all just get along? :D




canada
By Missing Ghost on 6/14/2006 6:48:15 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how the USA would react if the Canada said they were building nuclear weapons.




"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki