80 pits a year a “reckless expansion” :rolleyes: We produced 3000 W-76s in five years as only one of five warhead types in production at the time IIRC.

 
 

:rolleyes: These are serious people??
 
I can't even stand those guys anymore. They banned me from commenting because they didn't like my opinions of some of their "ideas". ;) They're about as far left as the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and POGO. I question whether there's a functioning brain amongst them. Land Based ICBMs are such a terrible idea that both China and Russia have TWO of them in production.
 
I can't even stand those guys anymore. They banned me from commenting because they didn't like my opinions of some of their "ideas". ;) They're about as far left as the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and POGO. I question whether there's a functioning brain amongst them. Land Based ICBMs are such a terrible idea that both China and Russia have TWO of them in production.
Only our weapons are dangerous haven’t you been paying attention the last 40 years!! :rolleyes:
 
No we need a new “Neptune E6” SLBM

 
The legislation mentioned in this article has caused so much delay in important national security programs. Should be repealed immediately.

Of course they will judge shop and get our weapon’s modernization programs delayed. What a joke.


Nuclear watchdogs, government accountability advocates and other critics argue that the decision to ramp up production of plutonium skirts requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and a decades-old court order that included a mandate for an environmental review when the federal government embarked on plans to boost production to more than 80 of the nuclear cores a year.
 
Reciprocity does not need a treaty. If Russia dismantled its' nuclear production capacity to match what the US has already done (Hanford, Savannah, Amarillo, etc) that would do a lot more than invoking catechism to make the case for more treaties. Having an internal anti nuclear movement (genuine) as well supported and vociferous as in the West would also make the idea more palatable.
 
Treaties can be an effective form of asymmetric warfare when one side can cheat knowing it can rely on "the usual" pressure groups who are not merely indifferent to the cheating but even hostile to raising the issue.
 
Treaties can be an effective form of asymmetric warfare when one side can cheat knowing it can rely on "the usual" pressure groups who are not merely indifferent to the cheating but even hostile to raising the issue.

The current US leadership are themselves are not in a particular place of credibility when it comes to maintaining treaties and other international commitments.
Treaties also help frame, and provided mechanisms for detecting and limiting, cheating.
Which is particularly important if, like any democratic country, you need to build consensus for moving in any particular policy direction (especially for those that demand so much resources and the opportunity costs that come with that).
And trying to imply that “pressure groups” that happen not to share your views are somehow traitorous is often seen on this forum but no less dishonest and despicable for it.
And completely counterproductive to what you should be trying to do which is to try to convince other people, instead of alienating them.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom