Defense Dept. Report Suggests U.S. to Build 2 New Types of Nuclear Weapons

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 8:54 AM PT — Thurs. January 18, 2018

The U.S. is considering producing new nuclear weapons to combat emerging threats from various countries.

One America’s Matthew Black has more.

86 Comments on "Defense Dept. Report Suggests U.S. to Build 2 New Types of Nuclear Weapons"

  1. nfcapitalist | January 22, 2018 at 6:38 am |


  2. Pamela Goodman | January 21, 2018 at 8:39 pm |

    One EMP and we would not need to do anything else. It does not even harm cause injuries the way a Bomb would.

  3. littlepeaks | January 21, 2018 at 7:17 pm |

    Deleted by user.

  4. It depends WHO YOU use it against…..and for what reason….

  5. Where do you think plutonium for atom bombs comes from?

    • Rogue Scholar | January 21, 2018 at 5:31 am |

      Yes, but you need a reactor to change uranium into plutonium. Do you have a reactor in your basement?

      • That is like saying that the venerable opium poppy is not necessary to produce heroin, morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, etc. There is a reason those drugs are called “opiates.”

  6. ChemicalDeath | January 20, 2018 at 10:38 pm |

    Deport all of the illegals and there will be money left over.

  7. nfcapitalist | January 20, 2018 at 11:51 am |

    MOS 46250 here reminding our military we had nuclear capable fighter bombers loaded and sitting on hot pads ready to swarm China and Russia in 1960… do we still have ICBMs targeting these goose-stepping militant nations because those tens of thousands of uniforms aren’t being trained to march in parades.

  8. What’s your point scholar? Less developed countries would be happy to use it for nuclear weapons. A civil war rifle will kill you just as well as an AR15.

    • Rogue Scholar | January 21, 2018 at 5:34 am |

      My point being, you must first “enrich” reactor-grad uranium into weapons-grade. Yes, during WWII we leaned how to do that in just two years while Iran is struggling to do it today.
      BTW, I have been on Nuclear Surety teams. Been there, none that!

      • I was born about an hundred thousand years ago.
        There ain’t nothin’ in this world I don’t know…

      • The Iranians are enriching. The North Koreans are enriching.
        I’m thinking it’s much better to keep our uranium here.

  9. Not if you puff before they poof.

  10. Anyone here OLD enough to remember Nuke artillery shells…Brief Case nukes…
    I guess not…

  11. ImStillaYankee | January 19, 2018 at 7:11 pm |

    But we were the only ones to develop the neutron bomb!

    • SHHH! Don’t pull an “Obama” and tell everyone! Thanks Chaney for killing the SR-71 Blackbird. So we could build B-2’s that were obsolete before they were built.
      One Mig29 with “look down shoot down” air to air missiles is an “Ace” in one minute!
      Kelly Johnson and the Skunkworks proved that with an SR-71 back in the 70’s!
      13 of the first 14 tests were “Kills”! Used existing missiles and radar with Skunkworks fire control system.

      • ImStillaYankee | January 20, 2018 at 4:16 am |

        SR-71 was my favorite plane of all time, but it was a spy plane & was weaponless. I’m not so sure on the B2 being obsolete, even today as it is ‘stealth’ tech & for a big plane has a real tiny radar footprint & can drop a nice payload.

        • Not because of the Skunkworks. They armed one like I said and proved they could launch air to air missiles at mach 3.4. Thank politicians like LBJ that wanted the B2 built in his back yard. Macnamara was the one that nixed modifying it for a bomber.
          Chaney is the one that insisted it be killed and all tools and jigs be destroyed and sold for scrap at 7 cents a pound. So they could built B-2’s! Nuts!

        • Rogue Scholar | January 21, 2018 at 5:12 am |

          There is a difference between a “spy” aircraft and a “reconnaissance” aircraft. The SR-71 is identifiable and everyone knows what it is but the first Pan Am 747 to land in Moscow was a “spy plane” as it had hidden cameras and other recording equipment but looked like a normal passenger aircraft.
          BTW, I got within 50 feet of the SR-71 that over flew NoKo in Aug. 1981. I blew an engine on my CH-47 Chinook and landed at Osan AFB and while waiting for our maintenance team, they let me go look at it in a hanger.
          CW4, AUS (Ret.)
          Vietnam War Huey pilot

          • ImStillaYankee | January 21, 2018 at 7:12 am |

            I stand corrected, I apologize for my poor use of terminology & having served in TAC I should know better.

        • Rogue Scholar | January 21, 2018 at 5:29 am |

          I agree with you on the B-2. Because their new GPS bombs can be dropped at maximum altitude compared to the laser designated bombs which can only be dropped from about 5,000 feet.
          Every time you double the distance from a radar you reduce the radar signature by the square root. At 40,000 feet you have 1/64th the radar signature as one flying at 5,000 feet.
          Oh, I have been radar locked-on by NoKo ADA radar and you can not out fly a missile in a Chinook, but an SR-71 can. In fact they shot over 4,000 SAMs at SR-71 and not one hit!

  12. ImStillaYankee | January 19, 2018 at 5:23 pm |

    I hope 1 of them is the neutron bomb.

    • SendThemPacking | January 19, 2018 at 5:32 pm |

      Isn’t it the one that wipes out huminoids. but leaves the infrastructure standing??

      • ImStillaYankee | January 19, 2018 at 7:10 pm |

        Yep, exactly. Best thing yet invented. Nothing like wiping out your enemy & moving right in without having to rebuild!

        • Not exactly…it kills everything organic to a few inches in the soil… Bacteria too…Cars houses buildings …not even touched.

  13. America's Greatest President | January 19, 2018 at 4:12 pm |

    better to destroy a small hitler than have a major war to destroy a growing threat
    a stitch in time saves nine

  14. America's Greatest President | January 19, 2018 at 2:29 pm |

    we have a historical miracle as our president, it did not happen by accident, definitely by a miracle, respect and stand in awe of his messenger

  15. Proud deplorable✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ | January 19, 2018 at 1:45 pm |

    It’s about time we pulled our head out of the sand where nukes are concerned. It’s insanity to draw down our arsenal while others are increasing theirs.

  16. We could of had this taken care of if Obama had never been elected-the absolute worst President in USA history proven time and again just like this example.

    • Think 2 Moves Ahead | January 21, 2018 at 9:02 am |

      While I agree with you, the alternate candidate was coward McCain. The one who exited his plane on the Forrestal, then ran away while others fought the fire. I could taste the vomit while voting against obama.

  17. intimeforthedime | January 19, 2018 at 10:37 am |

    They need to just concentrate on 2 types.
    The City size
    The Country size

    That’s all you need

  18. Just goes to show how Billary would sell all of America for another dollar or another underage girl.

  19. William Everett Hendry bhendry | January 19, 2018 at 9:03 am |

    Well, make sure we notify our enemies. Let’s keep no secrets!

    • nfcapitalist | January 19, 2018 at 11:34 am |

      Yup… ridiculous, we thought our military generals were patriots, seems like the strong ones were replaced by the weak.

      • FYI, Obama fired any officer that said he would NOT fire on civilians when ordered to. So there went the Americans! Nothing left but liberal drones.

    • Anonymous from LI in FL now | January 19, 2018 at 2:36 pm |

      yeah sure, let’s do it Obama style and make an announcement that on Tuesday of next week, we’re going to nuke NOKO LMAO what a fn fool that clown is. Uhhhhh, by the way, next week I’m sending 50 snipers to the middle east to deal with ISIS DUHHHHHHH sound familiar?

  20. Rogue Scholar | January 19, 2018 at 5:17 am |

    Well, when you have castrated your military as we did under Obama, it makes it more likely we would have to use nukes. But if we don’t have them, then what? SURRENDER?!?
    On December 1941 both Japan and the U.S. had ten aircraft carriers each but we had only three of ours in the Pacific. Would Japan have attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 if we had had all TEN of our carriers in the Pacific? Probably not!

    • Had the OOD listened to the destroyer that sunk a mini-sub, or the radar station the reported the large flight they saw, 2,400 sailors wouldn’t have died. Had GQ been sounded, ships gotten out of port, aircraft scrambled, anti-aircraft guns manned, history would be much different.

      • Rogue Scholar | January 20, 2018 at 4:57 am |

        Yes, that would have reduced our losses but the Japanese thought at least one of our aircraft carriers was at Pearl Harbor. I still contend that Japan would not have attacked Pearl if we had all ten of our carriers in the Pacific. But the current war was in the Atlantic and that was where most of our carriers we at on Dec. 1941.
        Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

        • Perhaps you are correct, but if Japan had not dragged us into the war when it did, the sleeping giant would have continued snoring until the Nazis had taken out the Brits and developed nukes first. By then our entry into the war would have been too late.

  21. Now..If we can keep Russia, and China from getting the construction details at the same time we are building them.. If we had Billy Bob, and Hitlery Klinton in the White House, it would be a money making deal.. China couldn’t design guidance technology for it’s missiles, so ole’ Billy made it all available for them..

    • ImStillaYankee | January 19, 2018 at 7:17 pm |

      “If we can keep Russia & China from getting construction details…” That’s easy enough to do—just keep Clintons & Obamas out of the WH

  22. America's Greatest President | January 18, 2018 at 6:45 pm |

    no that is a lie
    no one messes with the US now that we have a real commander and chief INSTEAD OF A COMMUNIST FOOL

    • We all know what communist fool you’re talking about. I’m not a proponent of using nuclear weapons, but if there is one small enough to shove up the communist fool’s ahole, think of how many millions of lives it would save.

    • Anonymous from LI in FL now | January 19, 2018 at 2:25 pm |

      hmmmm there’s always some crazy dictator out there. It only takes 1

  23. “…to powerful to use.”
    You always want to outgun your enemy. Always.

  24. Commander Balok | January 18, 2018 at 6:11 pm |

    For the s-hole locations in the middle east that these smaller nukes would be used, they are perfect. 1 to 2 kilotons or less would take out an entrenched enemy very nicely and barely wake the villagers over the next mountain.

  25. JJake Spitz | January 18, 2018 at 2:52 pm |

    We have those invisible submarines all around the globe. 6% of budget is a lot to give up for something, if used, could kill the planet as we know it. Maybe we keep reminding these other nations that our arsenal is still very potent

    • They are talking about low-yield weapons .. the kind we need so that we never have to use the kind that as you put it “could kill the planet as we know it.”

      Those who refuse to keep up with the times and adapt to the future get left in the past.

  26. Savatage64 (Always Deplorable) | January 18, 2018 at 2:41 pm |

    “U.S. To Build 2 New Types Of Nuclear Weapons”
    The first kind are those that obliterate the enemy…
    The second kind are those that pound the point home to the rest of the world about the first kind.

  27. nfcapitalist | January 18, 2018 at 1:44 pm |

    These aren’t new weapons designs, we had dial a yeld nuclear capable delivery systems in 1960 that were “phased out” during the Clinton administration… thousands of the… Mk 28 and Mk. 43… so why were they phased out… ?

    F-100 Super Sabres were nuclear capable as were the majority of fighter bombers then and now the B-2 is being touted as being nuclear capable… BS!!!

    • The SR-71 used conventional air to air missiles and radar the Navy had, added Skunkworks fire control software system. Shot down 13 of 14 drone aircraft, one from 90,000 feet. Drones flew at altitudes of 1,400 to 40,000 feet. Senator Chaney had SR-71 destroyed so we could build B-2’s that one SR-71 could have shot down by the dozen. Instant “Ace”!

  28. It’s hard not to believe the us is not only working on new nukes but also ray guns all buck Rogers stuff. the United States is still a nation to be afraid of . We are not a nation of conkeries but a nation of liberators. god should look down us as a good thing

  29. I thought we already had low-yield cruise missiles? .. Get on this Pentagon!

    • I think it’s the delivery system that is being focused on. The nuke tech they are talking about is old; very old.

  30. I just love nukes as they are superior to mass invasions. Terrorists holding in a small town and poof the town is gone. A military base and poof the base is gone. Troops massing for attack and poof they disappear. This is far superior then dead American soldiers. Poof the magic dragon.

    • Anonymous from LI in FL now | January 19, 2018 at 2:24 pm |

      True but we could go POOF if they get in the wrong hands or are sent OUR way from NOKO. Then you have ALOT of dead AMERICANS, PERIOD!! and the aftermath is a mess, to say the least.

      • We right now have the ability to shoot down at least 50% of Rocket Boys incoming missiles. I do not believe that he has more then 10 operational missiles with nuclear war heads. If we shoot down 5 then that allows 5 to hit Kalifornia and all we are out is illegal aliens and DemoRATZ. That is a win win situation.

    • Rogue Scholar | January 20, 2018 at 6:25 am |

      If Harry Truman had listened to Gen. MacArthur in 1950, the Korean War would have been over in 1951 and there would be only ONE united Korea which would be friendly to the U.S.

      • And if that same deepsheep Truman had listened to Patton Russia would not be a problem today. To be a DemoRAT requires being a deepsheep all the way to the bone. Even today they shut down the government for the sake of illegal Mexicans and say pee on the US military.

  31. We do need new weapons. We need a new source of Tritium for those weapons too. After both Bush presidencies, Clinton, and especially Obama, our defense posture is sad across the spectrum. At least if we have nukes the Roman phrase “oderint dum metuant” should be remembered by our real leaders. For liberals that means essentially that “they may hate so long as they also fear”.

  32. I say smaller tac nukes, just to blow a city or 2 away – they surrender…and we don’t have to loose soldiers protecting far off boarders on dirt roads [whilst we refuse to protect our own boarders]. Harsh, but it has worked before.

    • Kill them all as God is faithful to sort out the good ones.

      • …well put Roscoe, peace reins when strength endures…

      • twidgetZack | January 19, 2018 at 6:12 pm |

        USN 1976-1982 – ET on a Gator Freighter.
        Kill ’em all and let God sort them out.
        I prefer: Nuke ’em till they glow and shoot ’em in the dark.

        I wish we’d turn the mid-east into a glow-in-the-dark-ashtray.

        • Only Israel is a reason to spend American lives. The rest is a stink hole of dictators and Sunni Shiite hatred not worth one American life in it’s entirety.

    • Boarders pay to live in your house and eat at your table. Borders are the imaginary lines between nations.

      • achtung! spellcheck English major police! correction! ‘borders’ – as in codified agreements between nations – aka treaty – as in demarcation points between nations for taxation and use purposes. …nothing ‘imaginary’ about them. Just ask the tax man when your square footage or acreage is used as a measure of taxation. Unless of course you pay no property taxes. Wiki has good primer reading on such issues. As for boarders, I wouldn’t know a thing about it, I’ll take your word for it comrade. Obvious typo, did you bother to ponder the content or are you the typical English major and just checking everyone’s spelling language to gauge their educational level, while claiming to not be an elitist…?….lol…/;

  33. I prefer a communist dem seeking missile that conservative American loving Americans are immune to.

  34. I prefer a communist dem seeking missile that conservative American loving Americans are immune to.

Comments are closed.