This is coolbert:
Be aware that even a mere discussion of this topic will create controversy of an extreme nature.
"New nuclear weapons needed, experts say, pointing to aged arsenal"
Improvements and changes incremental will not suffice to maintain a valid American nuclear deterrent. What is needed are new warheads and new delivery systems.
"WASHINGTON (Tribune News Service) — Two decades after the U.S. began to scale back its nuclear forces in the aftermath of the Cold War, a number of military strategists, scientists and congressional leaders are calling for a new generation of hydrogen bombs."
* It has not been merely since the end of the Cold War that the American military has been reducing the inventory of atomic warheads. Such a process has continued more or less for at least for more than four decades and moves forward unabated.
* NO need for very large bombs. Numbers of smaller atomic bombs preferred. That two-thirds [2/3] root rule allows ten ten-kiloton bombs all dropped on the same target to do the same amount of damage as a single one megaton bomb. Ten times time does not equal one hundred in all circumstances.
* Precision guided munitions means also fewer atomic warheads needed to do the same amount of damage as was the case at the advent of the nuclear age.
* Improved-conventional-munitions [ICM] are able to do the same amount of damage as a tactical nuclear warhead. And that capacity constantly improves.
* Testing of new warhead designs will require an American abandonment of the self-imposed nuclear test ban as has been agreed to by a number of nations.
* NEW warheads might also mean NEW delivery systems? Minuteman, Trident, B-52 are all antiquated of themselves, the overall reliability of which is in question?
NONE of this is going to be easy, nor is it going to be done quickly or cheaply. But if nuclear deterrence is to be a reality IT NEEDS TO BE MADE SO!