Aging Nuclear Stockpile Good For Decades To Come 160
pickens writes "The NY Times reports that the Jason panel, an independent group of scientists advising the federal government on issues of science and technology, has concluded that the program to refurbish aging nuclear arms is sufficient to guarantee their destructiveness for decades to come, obviating a need for a costly new generation of more reliable warheads, as proposed by former President Bush. Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona and other Republicans have argued that concerns are growing over the reliability of the US's aging nuclear stockpile, and that the possible need for new designs means the nation should retain the right to conduct underground tests of new nuclear weapons. The existing warheads were originally designed for relatively short lifetimes and frequent replacement with better models, but such modernization ended after the US quit testing nuclear arms in 1992. All weapons that remain in the arsenal must now undergo a refurbishment process, known as life extension. The Jason panel found no evidence that the accumulated changes from aging and refurbishment posed any threat to weapon destructiveness, and that the 'lifetimes of today's nuclear warheads could be extended for decades, with no anticipated loss of confidence.' But the panel added that federal indifference could undermine the nuclear refurbishment program (as this report from last May illustrates). Quoting the report (PDF): 'The study team is concerned that this expertise is threatened by lack of program stability, perceived lack of mission importance and degradation of the work environment.'"
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:"Fixing the bombs fixes them!" (Score:2, Funny)
A program and procedure designed to keep the weaponry usable successfully keeps them usable.
Not a forgone conclusion. Remember, this is the government we're talking about
Refurbishing Nukes... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not atypical (Score:2, Funny)
NASA maned spaceflight vehicles is a prime example.
Is this some sort of mission spearheaded by Fabio?
"Guarantee their Destructiveness" (Score:5, Funny)
Does that mean nukes will now have a new label on them?
"Best if used to initiate Global Armageddon by December 12, 2054"
Man... (Score:4, Funny)
Can you imagine what the world was like 100 years ago? Where wars were fought on foot and were mostly civil wars, or simple trade disputes? Where mutually assured destruction and worrying how long your nukes will last were never present.
Or go back even further, like 500 years, where the world was a bold new place worth exploring, and if a war were to be fought, it'd be because you want to rescue the pope, or payback for a political insult, or because you were bored...
Sometimes I feel like I was born in the wrong century. The internet is way over-rated.
Re:God forbid (Score:1, Funny)
Sometimes 20 just isn't enough!!
20 is enough if you can get them into orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Re:"Fixing the bombs fixes them!" (Score:4, Funny)
'The same could be said about salt as the US possess far more salt than is necessary to kill every mammal on the planet many times over.
I believe the US agreed never to use this option at the SALT talks back in the 70s.