New Nukes for U.S.

In this Dec. 20, 2017, photo, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson listens as President Donald Trump speaks during a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington. Tillerson huddled Tuesday, Jan. 16, 2018, with nations that fought on America’s side in the Korean War, looking to tighten the economic noose around North Korea over its nuclear weapons even as hopes rise for diplomacy. The 20-nation gathering in Vancouver, Canada, hosted by Tillerson and his Canadian counterpart Chrystia Freeland, was called before the recent start of talks between North and South Korea, the first in two years. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

January 18, 2017

OAN Newsroom

A report released by the Defense Department called the “Nuclear Posture Review” recommends the U.S. build new nuclear weapons.

This comes as emerging threats in North Korea and Iran pose serious security risks, as well as China and Russia building up their nuclear arsenals.

“We have to recognize that that threat is growing, and if North Korea does not choose the pathway of engagement, discussion, and negotiation then they themselves will trigger an option,” Secretary of State Tillerson said in Vancouver, Canada on Tuesday.

Though the Nuclear Posture Review is a preliminary report meant to give recommendations, it does signal a shift in policy regarding nuclear weapons.

The U.S. has not conducted a nuclear weapons test since 1992, and has been working to decrease its nuclear arsenal for decades.

The Defense Department recommends the building of two new types of sea-based nuclear weapons, including a nuclear tipped cruise missile, and a low-yield trident missile.

The low-yield nuclear missile is meant to give a measured response – versus using current nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal, which are considered too powerful to use.

Critics say a low-yield option will make a first strike more likely because it is less destructive, while proponents argue it will serve as a deterrent because potential enemies will see it as a more viable threat.

Previously, former President George W. Bush lobbied to expand the U.S.’s nuclear arsenal, but all efforts to do so were killed by former President Barrack Obama.

Now, the report argues that Russia’s deployment of intermediate-range ground-based missiles are a violation of a 1987 treaty signed by former President Ronald Reagan, and developing new nuclear weapons are essential for purposes of deterrence.

The report, which was commissioned by President Trump a year ago, concludes what he had in mind all along.

“But Russia has been expanding. They have a much newer capability than we do. We have not been updating from a new standpoint,” said then candidate Trump during debates in the 2016 presidential election. “I think that once the nuclear alternative happens it’s over. At the same time, we have to be prepared. We can’t take anything off the table,” he added.

It is estimated that if the suggestions by the report are implemented, which also include a new strategic bomber and air launched cruise missile, it could take up 6.4% of the Defense Department’s budget.

This massive increase in cost ensures that the debate over developing these weapons will continue.

The final version of the Nuclear Posture Review will be released in February.

61 Comments on "New Nukes for U.S."

  1. Sounds good. But when will the feds start protecting our 2nd Amendment? End the ATF.

  2. Mitchell Jennings | January 18, 2018 at 10:31 am |

    This man (President Trump) reminds me everyday of the reasons I voted for him and the absolute, stellar correctness of my decision. Rock on Mr. President, rock on!

  3. The media protection of the traitorous Muslim lover Obama just keeps on giving. Weapons to PROTECT our country without devastating results? A typical response from Obama would reiterate: Making America stronger does not conform with my narrative of Anti-American hatred and the worldwide apology tour I am on to denounce the U.S. for being the greatest country in the world. President Trump just exposes the real treason that was taking place for the last 8 years EVERYDAY!

  4. The media protection of the traitorous Muslim lover Obama just keeps on giving. Weapons to PROTECT our country without devastating results? A typical response from Obama would reiterate: Making America stronger does not conform with my narrative of Anti-American hatred and the worldwide apology tour I am on to denounce the U.S. for being the greatest country in the world. President Trump just exposes the real treason that was taking place for the last 8 years EVERYDAY!

  5. I am appalled that America has no plans for “Tactical Nuclear War.” That is a huge gap and those in our war-readiness agencies need to be reorganized with persons who will fight for the possibility of nuclear war on a global and limited basis. Obama is responsible for this with his assessment that Russia is no longer our primary antagonist in the 2012 Presidential debate. Mitt sat there speechless showing what a weak leader he would make. That lost him the election. Nothing is important to Mitt.

    • Lorie Barnett | January 18, 2018 at 10:29 am |

      There was no plan for tactical nuclear war because they should never be used. They act as a deterrent for those people who remember the horror of the times they were used. They will only lead to destruction of anyone who is stupid enough to use them and maybe even destruction of the entire world. The UN should step in now to let Trump know he will be charged with war crimes should he ever use pre-emptive nuclear weapons on anyone. No one doubts that China is clearly able to strike the USA with a nuclear weapons. Why would anyone think that they would not respond in kind if N. Korea is attacked without any other reason than the president is itching for any reason to annihilate them. So if you think that a smaller nuclear weapons is the ticket, you are dead wrong.

      • You should consider looking up surgical strikes under military definitions. Then apply that low yield nukes. There’s a time and place for surgical strikes. We use them via drone strikes. Also, China is on the brink of losing its position of importance

        • Lorie Barnett | January 18, 2018 at 8:07 pm |

          Surgical strikes should never involve nukes. They emit radiation and the radioactive cloud would drift over innocent people, causing illness and death. Trump would be guilty of war crimes for that.

          • No he wouldn’t be guilty of war crimes. As far as collateral damage, that is something that should be thought of with any kind of strike. Are you going after Obama for the innocent people who died from his drone strikes as war crimes?

  6. nfcapitalist | January 18, 2018 at 9:18 am |

    Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer’s crew should be polygraphed and…

    First question should be… “do you hate America?”

    Second question should be, “are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party?”

    Then we can move on to the News Media.

    • andrew moore | January 18, 2018 at 9:24 am |

      Followed by mcstain taking the very same polygraph.

    • I have to wonder if, after decades of practice at prevarication and downright lying with a straight face, if those clowns are not so good at it they could defeat any polygraph test or drug existing, though.

  7. Jacob Morgan | January 18, 2018 at 9:05 am |

    The US needs to make some from scratch so the knowledge of how to do so is not lost–may have to bring in retirees to figure it out.

    Also, forget the test ban. Doesn’t seem to be preventing every other third world country from testing. Testing allows warheads to be tweaked to reality, instead of tweaked to a computer model. It would be a disaster if there was a nuclear war and the US warheads were way off on yield–or did not work at all.

  8. I don’t think smaller warheads are the answer. You can hit a target with multiple Tomahawk cruise missles (like they did to the Syrian Air Base) and create sufficient destruction. Radioactive fallout is something that can’t be controlled due to wind shifts and the deep, negative psychological view of nuclear weapons use (watch color video of Japanese survivors. It’s gruesome.) is another reason to only use them in self defense. The U.S. would lose the morale high ground and face huge global condemnation if we used nuclear weapons (even small ones) in any conflict as an offensive weapon. I could see spending money to upgrade, or replace, the cruise missle but not for more bombers. They are too expensive (2 billion for each B-2 is way too much). Maintain our ICBM and submarine stockpiles. The third leg of the nuclear trident is no longer practical with modern air defenses.

    • I think you touched on why small tactical nukes could be a useful option, smaller destruction area and the psychological effects of bigger nukes to follow if aggression against us is continued. Especially if you look at the case of the war with the Japanese in ww2.

  9. Just do it and don’t say a word that will get into the news outlets! We need to do our build up in quiet and just keep everything ready for use if it were to be needed. We have to many Dems that want to continue our country’s decline so they would surely sabotage any efforts to protect our country. Look at the immigration fight if you cant see them as a problem!

    • nfcapitalist | January 18, 2018 at 9:12 am |

      Agree completely… but it’s critically important to remove them who put America in this position… who, why, when… and then off to Kansas.

  10. nfcapitalist | January 18, 2018 at 8:48 am |

    Was French… now the Eurozone plan.

    Muslim invasion becomes a holy war and Putin comes to the rescue… end of story!

  11. nfcapitalist | January 18, 2018 at 8:00 am |

    Bernie Swartz ring any bells? Loral… no?

    Gave China missile technology during the Clinton administration under the guise of having China launch low earth orbit satellites for a Loral failed satellite phone system… is this where the FBI began failing America?

  12. Almost sitting ducks. We need to update our arsenal.

    • nfcapitalist | January 18, 2018 at 7:19 am |

      I’m now concerned about the readiness of our ICBM capacity and capability and are they targeting our enemies because if we have let that go as far as we’ve seen now of our aircraft delivery capability and capacity then we’ve truly been betrayed.

  13. Atomic devices need to be inspected and rebuilt regularly. While I not sure how often this happens. It’s my understanding that the devices that are found defective are disassembled. New devices must be introduced to ensure safe functioning devices

    • nfcapitalist | January 18, 2018 at 7:12 am |

      Thanks for the information… BS!

      • Your ignorance is showing.

        • nfcapitalist | January 18, 2018 at 8:39 am |

          Funny… I was there… uh, not sure how often highways last before they need to be resurfaced would be a more intelligent comment by Ed L or you, willnkc.

          Mk. 28 or Mk. 43… you’re familiar then?

          Mark me as sceptical.

  14. nfcapitalist | January 18, 2018 at 6:51 am |

    Look up these “identifiers” (Mk. 28) and (Mk. 43) and you will see images and numbers (thousands) of nuclear weapons that were deliverable by F-100 Super Sabres in 1960 and are now exactly… where?

    America now has been told the three B-2 bombers on Guam are “nuclear capable”…. have we, America, been betrayed by treasonous suits and skirts who believe “surrender” is the way to “peace?”

    Go on line and read the history of Mao’s “Great Leap Forward,” or Stalin’s “Holodomor,’… then explain to us how surrender will make America safe.

    • The entire B-2 fleet has been nuclear capable from day 1.

      • nfcapitalist | January 18, 2018 at 6:59 am |

        The entire B-2 fleet are less than 1% of what we had in 1960… that is my point.

        … hello?

        • Are you thinking of B-52?

          • nfcapitalist | January 18, 2018 at 7:04 am |

            No… I’m thinking of F-100s, F-105s, F-4s, F-8s, and any of the fighter bombers of that period were “nuclear capable” and we had thousands of them ready to swarm China and Russia from bases that had ready pads… I know bc I was there.

            These were mach 1.3 aircraft capable of delivering dial a yeld and selectable delivery methods… not suicide missions… that was our capacity to make America safe… to ensure we could get through at low and fast maneuvers and deliver more punishment than they were willing to endure.

          • Ah, I see. But then shouldn’t you count our F-35, F-15E, F-18, F-16 etc?

            I’m certain that all of them are capable of delivering tactical nukes. Whether we have many tactical nukes is another question altogether.

          • nfcapitalist | January 18, 2018 at 7:37 am |

            That’s a very good question until… you go to the website and see that all of those center pylon deliverable weapons were discontinued by the 1990s and see where they went with mfg. replacement devices…

            …. look and see at what we had in 1960 and what we have now… have to think Clinton administration, the weak GW administration focussed on the stone age enemies in the ME, and the last eight years under the pot smoking son of an unmarried communist mother… well… look a the facts.

          • ‘progressives’, for both parties believe that the ‘nation state’ is obsolete and that the only way to the future is a weakened or non existent USA. Its no wonder than these actions have been taken over the years. We have to believe them when they say this – as well as revisit our ‘education system’, nobody is teaching them the values of ‘western civilization’…just endless leftist crap, even our military branches do not have ‘why we fight’ films or any political training any longer, mostly….

          • nfcapitalist | January 18, 2018 at 8:46 am |

            Agree… my experiences were real time not second person… or “as I understand… blah blah blah… China is being taught to HATE America even more than the American News Media or our educators are teaching Americans to hate themselves… and I’ve seen both in person and personal.

          • yes sir. Ideas have consequences. We are discovering those consequences everywhere presently. Thank God our friend Trump showed up, not sure a Clinton presidency or another Bush would have looked any different.

        • Simmer…lol

  15. President Trump is no doubt asking for strength and guidance during these times with prayers to God. I say this because the heathen Oboozo, never did.

  16. This is the right thing to do. Thank you, President Trump, for undoing another aspect of Obama’s awful legacy.

  17. andrew moore | January 18, 2018 at 5:56 am |

    “Previously, former President George W. Bush lobbied to expand the U.S.’s nuclear arsenal, but all efforts to do so were killed by former President Barrack Obama.”

    Hey all you gullible liberals….Obummer made you less safe….sleep well tonight knowing your nuclear fears might become reality because your beloved muzzie didn’t give a sheet about you.

    • They do sleep well at night after all that was a good thing for the self loathing country loathing left

  18. antiliberal00 | January 18, 2018 at 5:36 am |

    Perhaps we should give the doughboy a few of our old ones to make room for our new ones. One on each of his testing/launching sites would be good.

  19. Jackson Pennie | January 18, 2018 at 5:28 am |

    “versus using current nuclear weapons in the u-s arsenal”

    Please correct US.

  20. I still suggest we inventory all the nukes we are supposed to have. I would not be surprised to find that some of them are missing.

  21. Hey folks did you notice in paragraph 9 it states that Bush Jr recommended expanding our nuclear capabilities and good old BHO killed the deal. For all the liberals who support Obama thanks for nothing. Now we’ve got a nuclear NK because every administration since Clinton have been kicking the can down the road and now it’s a nuclear can. Thank the good Lord we got Trump who has enough guts to stand up to NK/China/Russia/Iran/Pakistan & the UN.

  22. If Obummer opposed something the USA needs it, so now is the time to get it.

  23. Max Kronader | January 18, 2018 at 2:27 am |

    What stood out most to me about the article was “recent series of talks, the first in two years” between ROK and DPRK. Why? Because bullies like the Kim family respond to a position of strength than they do to appeasement.

    Just ask the shade of Neville Chamberlain how well appeasing dictators turns out.

  24. semperfipar | January 18, 2018 at 2:15 am |

    Well, Barry invited war with his policies of weakness I sure hope it is not too late.

    • Living in the Times | January 18, 2018 at 4:59 am |

      Yes, agreed. I read articles where our military said that the US was weak in the eyes of foreign governments and that we had lost their respect under the Obamarama Admin due to his lack of a spine. Trump has had many Democratic messes to clean up for sure!

    • Bogeygolfer | January 18, 2018 at 6:24 am |

      Not mention Bill Clinton giving them nuclear technology

      • Actually Bill also gave the Chinese missile guidance technology. Of course China passed it to their friends in NK who are now threatening us with it.

    • I certainly blame him for the lack of leadership of this country and dismantling our military and weapons.

    • Let’s build lots of them and test a few at BHO’s house. Just to make sure it’s a good batch.

Comments are closed.