Bush say Nukes get upgrade.

[amadeus]

Its that attitude that will get you that nuclear war....

On topic I can say that I am amazed.... why do they need more nukes? against who? Iran? No official Washington policy can explain a 2000 increase. Want to say more mr bush?

I hadn't seen this yet, and I'm wondering why the hell we need 2000 more nuclear weapons. Seriously, why?

Could anyone tell me where either of you got the 2,000 figure? I read the article and didn't see it.

Aside from that, nuclear issues are a lot more complicated than just assembling them. For example, some of our warheads sit in storage facilities, others are on missiles but the missiles don't have the target codes uploaded, and some are on standby at a moments notice; nor is it like we can just build them in a matter of a few days.

If any new strategic weapons are constructed, I can't imagine them posing other than a public relations threat to the White House, and that's no excuse to put the brakes on an important defense policy.

 

[Blazer6]

I agree with this change if they replace their bulky and expensive to maintain nukes with smaller, more efficient, and cheaper maintenance ones.
Huge yields mostly hit the sky and away from the target, while smaller ones are more concentrated and won't cause as much collateral damage. Smaller yields lead to smaller structures that house them and more can be placed in the area. This allows more to survive so the counter will be greater.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

The radiation from the bombs radiates throughout the whole atmosphere. Please don't

 

[JohnRM]

See, now how come everyone is so up in arms about the US modernizing its nuclear deterrent, but some of the same people who are up in arms about this are some of the same people who have nothing, but full support for the Iranian nuclear weapons program? Anyone?!

 

[Red Stranger]

What do you mean change it? ALL it takes is for you to vote for someone else. And if someone else doesn't exist, create something else.

You want the US to convert to an inferior form of government?
The two party system is the ONLY system that gives the people a decision AND guarantees that the winner must win the majority. If you have a 10 party system, the winner might only have 10.00000000001% support.

 

[Shadylookin]

I don't see the need for more. 10000 is plenty, and I don't really want us to be tossing around nuclear baseballs no matter what the yield.

 

[Gelion]

Dont generalize all of us based on a few people.

On a similar note pretty much all republicans are the same breed in many areas and so are the democrats.

In otherwords most of the time we have 2 choices on all view matters combined when voting.

So its hardly our fault.

Look I know about Americans. There are a lot of sane, intelligent and generally nice people there, more than in a lot of places around the Earth.
My comment was meant to show RS his position: cold blooded, selfish and frankly something that the world needs to death with.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

See, now how come everyone is so up in arms about the US modernizing its nuclear deterrent, but some of the same people who are up in arms about this are some of the same people who have nothing, but full support for the Iranian nuclear weapons program? Anyone?!

Perhaps it is because they recognise the right of a nation to defend itself. The US already has enough of a nuclear deterrent to defend itself, Iran does not. It's a poor comparison really.

If you'd asked for example why people are up in arms about the US upgrading their nuclear arsenal whilst the French, the British, the Chinese, or the Russians are doing the same, it still wouldn't be a perfect comparison but it would be closer.