BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Pentagon Eyes More Than $800 Million for New Nuclear Cruise Missile


http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20100309_8124.php

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

OMG! What say ye now naysayers? Ready...GO!

Anonymous said...

No way this'll ever get into production.

Besides the the issues with the stockpile....

Russia and China will have a major tizzy about any new weapons systems. They can stop any project they want just by not showing up for the next T-bill bond sale.

The whole notion of the nuclear triad is history anyway. It was a political deal to keep the various branches of the military happy. Using a manned bomber to deliver a cruise missile that could just as well have been launched via a ship or sub no longer makes sense.

Anonymous said...

So let me get this straight, we going to tear down all the Navy cruise missiles and rebuild an Air Force version? Can't we just scratch off the Navy logo on the nuclear cruise missiles they didn't want and slap on the Air Force sticker on them? Don't they all land in the same spot and make the same boom?

Anonymous said...

Agreed, the "nuclear triad" as a concept was abandoned long ago even though some,who frequent this blog, refer to it as if it still exists.

Anonymous said...

"The Moscow Treaty was signed by Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin on 24 May 2002 and ratified by the U.S. Senate on 6 March 2003, and by the Russian Duma on 14 May 2003. The Moscow Treaty sets lower warhead limits than the effective limits of START I and requires both sides to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads by midnight 31 December 2012."

Washington Post: "We're breaking what had been an effective sound barrier in the arms control world, which is the 2,000 number. That had always been the holy grail—if you go below 2,000 [the theory went] you'll lose the strategic triad."

Triad effectively ended by George W. Bush.

Anonymous said...

March 10, 2010 9:00 AM

Unless you want to deliver it from a point least expected. Let's just hope if we ever toss some nukes again they's about 1000times more powerful then the ones in Japan and we take out the entire country in one big bang leaving us no enemy to fight ever again. I love the smell of victory.

Anonymous said...

March 11, 2010 6:29 AM

I guess you also love the sight of burned little babies, dead women and children too. You remind me a bit of Saddam and his cousin chemical Ali, with their justification for mass area gassing of the Kurds in northern Iraq - some of them are attacking me, so just kill them all.

Anonymous said...

March 13, 2010 7:48 AM:

Well, past genocide by totalitarian dictators against their own people really has nothing to do with strategic nuclear war between nations, either in cause or in effect. But you know that, and really, good try at liberal moral equivalancy. Unfortunately, you lose.

Anonymous said...

Ha. There is guy who frequents this blog who would rather spend money on manned weapons carriers. Says it is more cost effective.Typical hay seed.

Anonymous said...

Ayep. Farm boy and proud of it too. Country folk have this thing you city slickers seem to have lost - it's called common sense.

What would you use that new nuclear-tipped cruise missile that cost nearly a billion dolars to take out? A cave in A-stan? Or better yet lob a brand-new ICBM with conventional warhead at the same coordinates, forgetting the lessons of Able Archer 83. We hayseeds tend to dislike wasting money or starting WW-III.

There is nothing wrong with remote vehicles - some are quite inexpensive and have the ability to save lives. However, right now any new weapons need to help with assymetric warfare. A cruise missile or ICBM is the wrong tool for dealing with MOUT combat or stopping small groups planting IEDs in the countryside. A MQ-9 equipped with AGM-114P's will do just fine and already exists.

So unless I'm a manager desperate for boondoggle money I'd be happy with the money going to more deserving projects.

Anonymous said...

March 25, 2010 5:57 PM
Man I nailed that one didn't I?

Anonymous said...

I think March 25, 2010 5:57 PM and March 26, 2010 8:03 PM are the same person.

Anonymous said...

March 25, 2010 5:57 PM

Quick as you can, quit the lab and submit your resume to DOD. They need you, PDQ! Your talents are being wasted here!

Blog Archive