Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Maintain nuclear arsenal

February 14, 2013

Lawmakers in Washington, D.C., should start listening to Sen. John Hoeven and other like-thinking members of Congress when it comes to discussion about maintaining the nation’s nuclear triad....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(26)

muleskinner

Feb-14-13 6:44 AM

Well, nuclear power, in the form of bombs, nuclear power plants, or nuclear waste, has to be maintained for the next 100 thousand years.

There is no choice in the matter, it must be done.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Feb-14-13 8:03 AM

Look up CIA suitcase bombs, we already give many countries bombs so they could bomb each other but they just won't do it yet. We will keep trying to get them to nuke each other.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Feb-14-13 9:59 AM

Yes, we can already blow up the world ten times so we must keep all of our nuclear weapons. Once a nuclear war is launched we are all done for!

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Feb-14-13 10:47 AM

Are we going to escalate another cold war with all the debt we have already h4c?

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Feb-14-13 11:01 AM

People are so brainwashed about nuclear power it amazes me. Of the thirty countries in which nuclear power plants operate, only France, Belgium and Slovakia use them as its primary source of electricity, although many of them have a significant nuclear power generation capacity. According to the nuclear power advocacy association World Nuclear Association, over 45 countries are giving "serious consideration" to introducing a nuclear power capability. Front runners, they say, are Iran, UAE, Turkey, Vietnam, Belarus and Jordan. The World Nuclear Association say that China, South Korea and India are pursuing ambitious expansions of their nuclear power capacities.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Feb-14-13 11:05 AM

Are we going to hear Sen McCain sing, "Bomb Iran" again h4c?

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheDiogenist

Feb-14-13 12:57 PM

The idea that a nuclear arsenal might act as a deterrent to a country such as Iran and especially North Korea is a bit ridic to say the least. Such a view severely underestimates (or simply discounts) the overwhelming might of America's conventional forces, and completely misunderstands the strategy behind those countries' nuclear programmes. A regime like the one in Iran would never give a nuclear bomb to a terrorist group - chances are at least as likely that it would be detonated in Tehran as it would in Tel Aviv. Their bombs (NK) or attempts to build bombs (Iran) are simply bargaining chips employed by otherwise toppling regimes that are in no way influenced by America's nuclear arsenal. Meanwhile the billions we spend swabbing the dust off our nuclear triad does nothing, akin to France's fabulous Maginot Line. We risk complacency preparing for old wars, and anyway wouldn't propose nuclear disarmament if there wasn't something far more lethal waiting in the wings.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BeaverFan

Feb-14-13 2:23 PM

Why not make use of the ones we have?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Feb-14-13 5:52 PM

I regrettably agree with leftwing.

New tech always wins out in military ventures. Check military history over the ages: the innovations lead to the advantages.

Can you say Roman phalanx? Or German blitzkrieg? How about Little Boy and Fat Man?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Feb-15-13 9:50 AM

H4c what do you suppose we do with North Korea and Iran that we are not doing already?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Feb-15-13 9:54 AM

h4c this whole sequestor deal was all cooked up by your republican friends in hopes that after the election when their boy Romney got elected they would deal with it then. It kind of blew up in their faces.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Heisenberg

Feb-15-13 11:56 AM

As in many cases, this is not nearly as clear cut as it seems on the surface. If you can't see the forest from the trees, sometimes you can't see the trees if you're too far from the forest.

Here's a novel idea, maybe try asking the military whether there are nuclear weapons that they don't need. Some weapons could be old and inordinately expensive to repair and maintain. Other weapons may have had their strategic value supplanted by new methods or technology.

Decreasing the number of nuclear weapons might actually improve our military capability if it frees up money and resources for more effective uses.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Feb-15-13 1:43 PM

The problem with retiring nuclear weapons is they suddenly become nuclear waste. The nuclear BOOOOGY MAN gonna get you!! hahhahaa!!!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Feb-15-13 1:52 PM

Although a method is available to degrade the weapons grade material down to fuel rods for reactors. The Japanese have superseded the US in Nuclear Energy R&D with the Plutonium breeder reactor, it actually somehow replaces the energy it burns with more energy. They have nuclear powered pacemakers they remove from people when they pass away also. Anyway there is no such thing as nuclear waste if we can use it to make electricity. I personally believe the oil is an insulator that helps keep the surface temperatures of the planet down and should stay where it is. The nuclear energy (uranium) was put near the surface for us for some reason I do believe.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Feb-15-13 2:18 PM

It is very remarkable that the only Nation (Japan) to ever have a Nuclear Bomb used on it in war is the leader in developing safe and effective use of nuclear energy. It is inevitable that someday nuclear energy will be the primary source of energy on this planet and for that occasion the powers that be in charge of our energy policies now are the stakeholders in place to dole out nuclear energy as a controlling entity just as oil is now. That future should be altered now while we may still have a tiny chance.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Feb-16-13 9:26 AM

EarlyBird didn't Japan have a major nuclear disaster after the sunami?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Feb-16-13 9:42 AM

WA, there was not. Although there was structural damage the four reactors are still churning out electricity. The Japanese are letting the reactors finish utilizing the fuel rods that are in place which will take several decades.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Feb-16-13 10:29 AM

As part of the modern odyssey the tsunami did bring that certain fate to that and those who live and build to close to water. There was a lesson dealt out that cannot be forgotten, move to higher and dryer ground. They plan to shut down that location in a couple decades when they have fully utilized the energy source in place and move it further inland. In the USA we have the perfect locations for as many reactor sites as we need, the old underground coalmines have an environment that is controllable. With the roads and electric power lines already in place the underground coalmines being located mostly in the eastern USA, where most of the population is, are perfect for the future nuclear program.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Feb-16-13 11:58 AM

EarlyBird you do not consider the episode in Japan NOT a NUCLEAR disaster? There is a whole town that will never be able to be habitable again!!!

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Feb-16-13 12:31 PM

I think all propaganda is a disaster. Look out for that boogyman next time you get an x-ray. All radiation requires a source and I will not believe that you will be source of radiation just because you got an x-ray. Nuclear reactors are allot like microwave ovens except they make power instead of consuming it. Study the one micron wavelength to see how it effects oxygen molecules. The future is bright with nuclear energy!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

namexxx

Feb-16-13 12:39 PM

"and other like-thinking members of Congress"

There is no such word as "like-thinking." The MDN editorial board's writing is as pathetic and ridiculous as their opinions.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Feb-16-13 12:40 PM

For crying out loud, a bonfire can get out of hand and do a lot of destruction. All sources of energy have to be handled correctly and wisely, no matter what type of energy we're talking.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Feb-16-13 12:44 PM

The word "like-thinking" could be substituted by something more appropriate, I'll give you that, namexxx.

But the rest of the snark I'll just have to tune out...

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

namexxx

Feb-16-13 3:06 PM

There is no such word as "like-thinking." It doesn't exist. The phrase doesn't even make sense.

Again, a lack of language skills reflects a deficient mind.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

namexxx

Feb-16-13 9:41 PM

I'm really worried. I think we need more guns.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 26 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web