What is Digg?393 Comments
- breakneckridge, on 10/12/2007, -31/+121Worst. President. Ever.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+97This seems kind of strange. Every day for five years, we have heard "this is a new kind of war" and "we are in a new era" and "our enemy isn't a country or an army that we can single out and attack". If not, then what is the point of binging on nukes like nothing in a quarter century? Isn't that a bit like bringing a basketball to a tennis match?
Also, has anyone else ever actually heard our nuclear status referred to as "decrepit"? I sure haven't. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+59Unfortunately, the article is clear that these are BOMBS and not just nuclear material for energy (which sadly seems to be a very taboo topic in America thanks to various lobby groups). I think that steps like this make it very difficult for us to position ourselves in the international world of politics and diplomacy. We're talking about weapons of mass destruction which serve no purpose to dealing with "terrorists".
Perhaps the intent is to rev things up to "show those commies" in China and Korea and in Iran who have and/or are posturing over their own nuclear capabilities? If so, that sort of "my dick is bigger" diplomacy doesn't strike me as a successful proposition.
Sometimes it really freaks me out to see that a country that had the support of so many nations and peoples immediately after the terrorist attacks has squandered all of that support and good will with ridiculous dick waving and ten-gallon-hat tipping in the last four or five years. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -28/+76> Worst. President. Ever.
He's not a president... He's a tool. - Xopl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+42"Daddy I want more Nukes!"
"But you don't use the Nukes that you have now, Son." - shiftt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+37good point.
and I wonder how long before Russia and China come and use this justify their own nuclear productions
then what? US will point the finger of blame at them?
or wait.. is this.. some kind of new way.. to prevent terrorism?
because, to be honest, I'm starting to get confused. Every single time our defense budget increases, the excuse is always "to fight terror" ...
they should add a slogan.. "We fight terror"... " no matter how much it costs or who gets ***** over" - Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -18/+44@Oakes:
How short term your memory is, Korea and Iran may be bad but are they this bad:
-Are they the only Nation to use nukes in a war they provoked, on civilians, without warning, twice?
-Did they topple Democracy in Iran to install the Shah?
-Have they regularly done these sorts of actions to countries all over the world(especially the Middle East)?
-Do they have illegal prison/torture/execution camps all over the world?
-Have they used deception to start/provoke every major war in the past 60 years? (from Pearl Harbor to Gulf of Tonkin to Desert Storm)
-Have they bombed over 26 countries since WW2?
-What is the deathcount/violations caused by them and their satellite nations(Israel)?
-Do they have a Patriot Act, related laws, and capabaility that would make the Soviets jealous?
-The list can go on and on, well beyond wiretaps.
This isn't a left or right issue, The U.S. government, both sides, are evil. The sheeple seem to want to forget the facts and believe in a black and white world. They govt goes around and ***** up the world, then say to the people: "Look those guys are evil, forget that we did it to them, lets go to war!" for the military industrial complex. Your not free, the corporations own the govt, and the govt owns you. They fooled you long ago to believe that patriotism meant supporting your govt, party, or president, not your country.
The best prison is one where the inmates think they are free.
Don't bother calling a liberal either. - frelk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29Now we'll be able to destroy the world forty ONE times over!
- zediker, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27YAY! World War III: The Afterglow... First off, this is INCREDIBLY hypocritical. Here we are telling Iran, "No Nukes For You!" Yet we are going to start making them again? You know what? I give up, this world is nucking futs! I'm just going to slip into catetonia and live peacefully in my own little world, with a casino that has blackjack and hookers... actualy forget the casino and blackjack... aw screw it all... *slips into depression*
- fgiDangeresque, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26I just dont see a point having a nuke for every man woman and child in the united states. We all have seen what nuclear weapons can do, so making this many surely serves no other purpose to
a) have them 'stolen' and put onto the black market, whereby they will be bought by the people who are already dissatisfied with america (and its unlucky/stupid allies), at the same time fuelling the arrogance and ignorance of the average american; or
b) motivation to use them, because you CANT DO ANYTHING ELSE WITH THEM
(nice comment seumas, btw) - manicarzo, on 10/12/2007, -23/+42So let me get this straight.
Iraq, Iran, and Korea may not have nukes. But the United States can.
Logic?
FTFA:
"But the administration blueprint is facing sharp criticism, both from those who say it does not move fast enough to consolidate plutonium stores and from those who say restarting bomb production would encourage aspiring nuclear powers across the globe to develop weapons."
Sure, why not! - comeonpriitk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Don't nuclear bombs contain parts that have a half life of around 10 years? When dismantling old "decrepit" bombs they recycle and concentrate what is left to keep the remaining bombs usable. I can't find the original article where I read this, but it could have been tritium.
- stoops, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Einstein said it best,
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Its sad the U.S. has to do this. I thought we were entering a peaceful world. - seand, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27to mzx639:
So, did you drink the kool-aide or something? You don't honestly believe the drivel you are spouting off, do you?
I am quite tired of the "with us, or against us" angle so many have taken to wave their flag of fake patriotism...it is definitely growing old and tiresome.
It does not take being smarter than a jar of mayo to know this plan is a terrible one. - planckscale, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23Worst. Congress. Ever.
Watch the movie "Why We Fight". Why do we fight/build bombs? Because the military machine and the government are now the same. The same people who are in charge are the same people that produce the weapons, and the same people that need to use and build new weapons to feed the same military machine that Ike Eisenhower warned of in his farewell address to the nation. - Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -13/+30"So let me get this straight.
Iraq, Iran, and Korea may not have nukes. But the United States can.
Logic?"
The same logic that allows an adult to buy a gun, but doesn't allow a angry 4 year old to do the same. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18there is something wrong about the term "large-scale bomb manufacturing capacity" something ominous you could say, especially when theyre talking nuclear...
- christianw, on 10/12/2007, -10/+26im convinced now. this man wants us all dead and he wants the rest of the world to completely hate us.
- Stonekeeper, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19What makes you think votes will decide the next election?
- rimco, on 10/12/2007, -11/+27I believe it was Odo on DS9 who once said something of the sort, "The problem with giving people the freedom of choice is that sometimes they make bad ones." I think Bush qualifies...
- iKato, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20Most effective way to piss off Iran and North Korea short of invading.
- Oakes, on 10/12/2007, -14/+29Nichevo -
-The Japanese raped and murdered thousands of Chinese and other orientals of the region. They then murdered 3000 Americans at Pearl Harbor. No short-term memory here. We brought them to their knees, forced them to adopt an American-style constitution, and today they are the second largest economy on the planet.
-The U.S. has stooped to give support to terrible regimes, usually for pragmatic reasons which I totally oppose. Does that make our government equivalent to the regimes themselves?
-We torture Islamists who want to murder Americans; they torture innocent men, women, and children. Again, you people are hopeless.
-I'm not getting into left-wing conspiracy theories about how America started every war in the 20th century. Sorry - that's not my cup of tea.
-"Bombing countries" and "deathcount" leave open the question _who_ and _for what purpose_. It is perfectly legitimate to kill for self-defense.
-Why don't you ask for the deathcount of North Korea and Iran?
-No, they don't have a Patriot Act, they have a Speak-Out-Against-Us-And-We'll-Murder-You-And-Your-Family Act.
Like I said, I don't support my government in every instance - but the arguments you're making are as naive as a teenager groping for an excuse to hate America. You're damn right I won't bother calling you a liberal - no ordinary liberal thinks this trash.
PS. I found it interesting you said "Korea and Iran may be bad but [...]"
Forced starvation and public hangings of little girls "may" be bad. That's about all I can handle. - topher1078, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16It's the rocket engines and the navigation equipment which fails first and can be replaced, the actual fissile material and the bomb last for a long, long time.
- Stockwell, on 10/12/2007, -10/+24And at the same time: http://digg.com/science/US_Announces_Plans_to_Combat_Global_Warming
Georgie is playing tricks again........
Combat Global Warming with nukes..... yup that must be it. - GuyHersh, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23You know, theres is a reply button now that indents your reponse. You no longer need to copy and paste a persons comment.
- thewise1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15uhh, lol
I think you've been watching too many movies! - kevinmoore, on 06/13/2009, -3/+16Is that why the aftermath is called nuclear winter?
- thenativeraver, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13There are some things that can't be manufactured sustainably and there are things that shouldn't be manufactured at all, this is both.
- dualpower, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11The amount of people killed by terrorist attacks (and even potential terrorist attacks) is insignificant compared to "boring" every day problems.
A "war on obesity" would save more American lives. - EnricoFermi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16It's a shame. With the US on the brink of an energy crisis and the effects of global warming rapidly increasing you'd think bush would find a better use for that plutoniuim. These "new nukes" are just gonna sit and collect dust just like the old ones (one can only hope).
This shouldn't even be a priority for the US, even if Iran and North Korea do get nukes, they still won't be a match for the america's "deprecated nuclear stockpile" and they know that as well as bush does.
The real threat lies in one of those countries passing nukes into the hands of terrorists, in which case us having bigger nukes won't be worth a damn. Cold war all over again, a waste of americas time, money and resources - Rinkin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17And we don't want Iran to make nukes?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Yes. Terrible mis-titling. How dare I title it with "US Plans to Build 125 Nukes per year" when the article says in the first several paragraphs the exact phrse "US Plans To Build 125 Nukes Per Year". Shame on me!
- cjonpayne, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15I can't help but feel that most of the comments on this are from people who are "shooting from the hip" and failing to utilize the hindsight that history allows us.
First of all: The United States won the Cold War by building an arsenal so powerful and technologically superior that the Soviet Union went bankrupt trying to maintain parity. Every time the USSR deployed a technology that they thought would put them on equal footing with the United States, the U.S. military would make something operational that the Soviets would spend ten years trying to replicate. The sea-launched ballistic missile is a good example of this. While the USSR was the first to successfully launch a SLBM, the United States was the first to do it from underwater, and had a range advantage of over 1000 kilometers for a number of years (the Soviets could only launch while surfaced, and at a vulnerable range of 350 kilometers). The same is true of MIRVs, of which the United States had a monopoly for a number of years. The fact is, research and development won the Cold War. The United States not only outspent the Soviet Union, but it fielded technologically superior weaponry, quite possibly preventing a direct military confrontation with the two superpowers.
While the war on terror may be a different kind of war, that doesn't change the fact that other nations (some of them international pariahs) continue to develop nuclear technology. It is beyond irresponsible to suppose that these nations will cease to develop nuclear weapons if the United States does the same. Ceasing research and development of nuclear weapons will only allow other nations to make some headway at having parity with American designs. While this might not be a bad thing in the case of nations like France and the UK, it is a very bad thing in the case of nations like North Korea and Iran. Iran has been the largest monetary and material sponsor of international terrorism for over two decades now. The very concept of "exporting jihad" in modern times started in Iran. If you have to ask why a country like Iran having nuclear weapons is any different from a country like the United States having them, you need to do some homework, because your head is in the sand.
The very concept of mutual assured destruction, which many historians -- myself included -- believe prevented the Cold War from becoming an inferno, implies that a nation must do whatever it can to maintain a technological superiority. This is implied because for MAD to be an effective policy, your enemy must face the reality that no matter how hard they hit you, they will get hit harder. And when considering nations like North Korea, Iran, and possibly Pakistan, I am encouraged that they face the prospect of complete annihilation by superior weaponry if they attempt to utilize one of their inferior designs. There is not a more powerful deterrent.
Now you are welcome to -Digg me into oblivion. But I believe that history is on my side, and as much as I dislike George W. Bush, in this instance, he just might be right. - willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Using nukes instead of conventional bombs might be the strategy to combat global warming.
Think of how much fossil fuel is used to send tons and tons of conventional bombs. Its outrageous to waste such large quanities of fuel when you could send one plane, with one bomb.
I mean, you gotta think about the planet. Its so wasteful to send conventional bombs. - szelij, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Who here can see the global implications? Let's talk about Iran. As they hear this, with new 'weapons designs' that are being made in the US, they're going to think '***** them' and make their own weapons, because they know the US hates them and they need to defend their government.
Now this situation will lead eventually to a pre-emptive strike by Israel which could trigger an assault on the vital Straits of Hormuz. Regardless, a pre-emptive strike by Israel would result in record-high oil prices...and that would hurt everyone. It could even lead to total rebellion and open warfare in the middle-east. If you think the palestinian-israeli conflict is messy now, when the whole region is in chaos, it'd be much worst. It's especially evident in the Saudi Arabia, where the people practically hate their king-it wouldn't take much to set off the firecrackers. - andreo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@brak
That's already been figured out. We will send up a couple of our space shuttles to intercept the comet. They will stop off at the Russian spacestation for re-fueling and just land the shuttles on the surface of the comet / asteriod and blow it up.
Our only worry will be making sure we have enough Aerosmith MP3's for trip there and back. - olorin1984, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The plutonium and uranium in nuclear weapons lasts a long time, but you are correct that tritium, which is used to "charge" the weapons does have a short half life (about 12 years) and would need to be replaced fairly often to maintain its effectiveness.
- oktobr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Nukes only cause quick deaths to those in ground zero. Most casualties will be blinded, burnt, and have long-term radiation side-effects. I'd rather be shot than be caught 10 miles from the point of detonation of a relatively small 20 megaton device.
- PKO17, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12The Japanese raped Asia (both figuratively and physically) and gave the finger to the rest of the world when they were asked to stop. The US placed an embargo on trade with them; and you say the US was the most terrible nation in the world?
- Djanvk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I thought we were against WMD's? WTF?
- artpgh, on 10/12/2007, -15/+23I wonder what part of "Thou shalt not kill" our 'born again' president doesn't understand. >
- jcb1979, on 10/12/2007, -10/+18When World War II ended, one nation had suffered no damage to its infrastructure, no damage to its homeland, and no serious economic repercussions; that same nation had the only atomic bomb; it also had the most powerful military on the planet. What did that nation do? Take over the world? Nope--rebuilt it. I know you know to what nation I am referring. Can you honestly say that if Iran, or China, or Russia, or Korea were in comparable positions they would do the same thing America did?
THAT is why it is OK for us to have bombs and for them NOT to--we won't use them, but will keep them to deter anyone from trying anything. Korea, Iran, China--tell me you trust them... - thewise1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11One thing to consider, though.. I saw someone point out that china is less a threat to us than terrorism (which is pretty much not a huge risk either in my mind). That might be true (I don't really know for sure).
However, keep in mind that a lot of the reason no one DOES mess with us is the fact that our carrier groups can project power anywhere in the world. Our nuclear weapons mean that anyone who tries something crazy might take us down, but they will go down too. Although I think this might be a big waste of money, the status quo DOES involve our current stockpiles of nuclear weapons, so if they get old enough to no longer work properly or 'safely', it makes sense to replenish the stockpile if you want to maintain the status quo.
I dunno, just a thought. - andreo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@elias
I'll take my chances with the Zombies. If there was such a thing, I can run from a zombie. I can't run from a wave of burning radiation.
I just can't understand the point of a weapon build up. This is moronic! I can't say anything else without offending the hell out of some people so I will keep my mouth shut. I'm also going home to take a nap. Also it's times like this that I'm so glad I decided to not have any kids. I would hate to think that I was responsible for bringing them into such a f*cked up world where boneheads that never even f*cking served in the armed forces (and no getting in and partying all the f*cking time does not f*cking count!). Can not only put the lives of the men and women on the line for absolutely nothing, but again have every non-friendly nuke in the world pointing right at us.
But some slack jawed, sister screwing, moonshine drinking, nascar watching, "south will raise again" yelling, yokel will swear that this is the only way that we will get any respect in the world. (darn, I said I wasn't going to offend anyone).
Oh, and I forgot to mention. The nation is BROKE. We are so deep in debt that we are borring money from the Chinese! Why are we building up now when we have no money! - deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12I'm far more scared of Bush than I am Iran, North Korea, or Iraq.
- kalisphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Unfortunately, the article is clear that these are BOMBS and not just nuclear material for energy (which sadly seems to be a very taboo topic in America thanks to various lobby groups)."
I might be in a rather uncommon position here, actually having worked with nuclear energy (power plant operator for 6 years in the Navy), but I don't think it's sad at all that nuclear power is a taboo topic. - Stonekeeper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Actually, Ants are the only other species to rage war on each other.
- thewise1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Fact: The United States has detonated 334 nuclear weapons in the air, on land, and under/on the sea since we invented the weapon.
Needless to say, the other powers of the world have detonated plenty already as well. These weapons are terrible indeed, but one thing they will not do is put is in nuclear winter without a LOT of them. So for those of you saying we can destroy the planet... relax. It's just your city! :D - Predicament, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Proposal. This won't happen. I thought it was obvious that the Dubai ports deal wouldn't happen either, but I still found myself telling countless other people that they were wrong for thinking it would.
- kalisphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"If your scared any american regardless of their political party more than the psycho dictators of those countries you are a complete tard."
I'm scared ***** by any fanatic in direct proportion to their ability to end human life. Iran? *****, they can't even reach us. They can reach Israel, which makes me nervous, but the US can reach everyone. If Bush has an epileptic fit or goes sleepwalking or has a bad dream or smokes some crack, half the world's population can be shambling mounds of cancer within hours. Is this logical? Hardly. If one person can destroy millions or billions of people, I view this as a pretty scary thing.
I'm always irritated when conservatives say that liberals are living in a dream world -- that they're naive, flower-gathering, happy little faeries of the forest who braid hair and crochet cozies for their bottles of white zinfandel. My question to you is: who do you trust with the lives of your family? I trust no one, and therefore I'm all about returning power to the people as much as is sensible. I'm also anti-nuke (both weapon and power, having been a nuclear power plant operator in the Navy). Now, this doesn't mean that I want to be raped and murdered by Irani death squads -- keep in mind I'm a veteran -- I'm just saying that there are positive steps and there are negative steps. This (as I see it) is a negative step. -
Show 51 - 100 of 389 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is