Experts say this new higher-yield nuclear bomb appears intended to pave the way for retiring the older B83 megaton bomb.

US to build new nuclear gravity bomb::Experts say this new higher-yield nuclear bomb appears intended to pave the way for retiring the older B83 megaton bomb.

    • RedditWanderer@lemmy.worldEnglish
      17·
      1 year ago

      The US is so fucking stupid:

      this weapon was made to reflect the changing security environment in line with the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review. That study said the military needed to modernize its nuclear forces to properly deter its two main nuclear-armed competitors, China and Russia.

      There’s really no reason to have “better” bombs. It’s MAD either way. This is just the industrial military complex going full steam in 2023. And only the US can, or else that would of course mean war…

      • Vqhm@lemmy.worldEnglish
        9·
        1 year ago

        Nuclear weapons are expensive and complicated to maintain. The military has been bitching for many years that the price to maintain old nuclear munitions is rapidly increasing.

        Instead of seeing this as working as intended, and trying to get everyone to agree not to develop new nuclear weapons… The military strategists decided that since China was making 500 new nuclear weapons we needed to make new ones too and pulled out of the agreement with Russia not to develop new nukes.

        I would have thought that if it was hard for us to maintain the nuclear weapons with a massive budget that Russia might fail at that task. Which would be good for everyone.

        But there’s always been more money in star wars and missile defense then diplomacy.

        • jasory@programming.devEnglish
          6·
          1 year ago

          China has absolutely zero interest in negotiating arms treaties, they aren’t quite in a full arms race with the US. The way arms limitations treaties work is if there is a rival state that will always match or exceed your armament, then you actually have an incentive to stop. If you don’t have such a rival then you can always ensure that you are on the top and ignore any treaties.

          • thejml@lemm.eeEnglish
            8·
            1 year ago

            If the maintenance and production of new ones is cheaper than maintaining the old ones, it makes sense to replace them. But then they’d have to actually replace/decommission the old ones.

          • papertowelsEnglish
            4·
            1 year ago

            Do you think it’s cheaper to maintain stuff from 40 years ago, or to make something new?

            Keep in mind you can’t exactly go down to the nearest AutoZone to buy replacement parts either.