Thesis Statement: Replacing the Stockpile Stewardship Program ( SSP ) with the Reliable Replacement Warhead Program ( RRW ) may relieve bing issues refering the long-run dependability. safety. security. and fabrication of U. S. arms. However. the RRW has been cancelled due to the overpowering concern of long-run financess to keep RRW and Democrats feel as though the RRW is non a proved engineering ( GlobalSecurity. org ) . However. the RRW should be used as a motivation non to go on atomic testing.
Presently. the SSP consists of worn arms that are dearly-won to keep and are subjected to underground testing ( Boyer 303 ) . Implementing the RRW will supply cost-efficient and dependable arms that are manufactured to last with fewer duties to atomic belowground testing. Implementing the RRW would be a good investing for this ground entirely. Overall. replacing the SSP with the RRW will set up new cost-effective arms with less care that are less prone to belowground atomic testing ; supply state-of-the art engineering to protect the U. S.
from terrorist’s invasions – such as hacking and unauthorised use. and make an efficient method for procuring the diminishing reserve. 1 ) Long Term Reliability of U. S Weapons. The care of refurbished arms may go more complicated due to aging. The RRW addresses this issue by implementing new arms that are cost-effective and safe therefore supplying dependable and safe arms for the U. S. Harmonizing to the article. A New Nuclear Warhead. “The RRW is committed to the smallest atomic stockpile consistent with our security ; to safe. secure and dependable arms ; and to the current atomic proving moratorium.
” Refurbished arms tend to necessitate more care and are capable to atomic belowground testing. 2 ) The Safety and Security of U. S. Weapons. The SSP may non be sufficient to run into future ends refering to the safety and security of U. S Weapons. In the article. Reliable Replacement Warhead. “RRW aims to do US atomic arms safer and more secure against unauthorized usage by integrating state-of-the-art security characteristics that can non be retrofitted to older arms.
The ultimate end is to passage to a smaller. more antiphonal atomic substructure that will enable future disposals to set the US atomic reserve as geopolitical conditions warrant. ” ( 26 ) 3 ) Care of Existing Weapons may go more expensive with the SSP. Refurbished arms require more care than newer arms therefore necessitating extra financess to prolong current conditions of the arms. Harmonizing to the Department of Defense intelligence release. Kenneth Krieg states that the execution of the RRW will cut down stockpile size by allowing new arms with less care.
Newer arms will necessitate less care and in return will be less applicable to extra support. Members of the Nuclear Weapons Council are confident that integrating the RRW will allow a more positive and cost-efficient substructure by using improved computational and experimental tools to administrate the proficient base ( U. S. Strategic Command 1 ) . 4 ) Implementing the New RRW Plan. The RRW intends to implement newer U. S arms with higher-performance evaluations and progress safety and security characteristics while supplying a less expensive care program.
After analyzing the article in Bulletin of Atomic Scientist. the RRW is aimed at carry throughing a more cost effectual and efficient method of procuring the diminishing reserve to be more dependable and safe ( Drell 48 ) . Integrating the RRW will supply the tools necessary to guarantee that atomic belowground testing is less likely to be required for future designs ( A Different Kind of Complex 1 ) . Decision: Unfortunately. the RRW has been cancelled due to the overpowering concerns of long-run financess to keep RRW and Democrats feel as though the RRW is non a proved engineering.
However. the RRW should be used as a motivation non to go on atomic testing. Implementing the RRW will relieve the SSP of bing issues refering the long-run dependability. safety. security and fabrication of U. S arms that are less prone to belowground atomic testing. Overall. RRW will function as a solution to the on-going concerns of belowground atomic testing.
Arm Control Association. “A Different Kind of Complex: The Future of U. S. Weapons and the Nuclear Weapons Enterprise. ” ( 1997-2009 ) : 3 March 2009 & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www.
armscontrol. org/print/3454 & gt ; “A New Nuclear Warhead. ( Editorial Desk ) ( Letter to the editor ) . ” The New York Times. ( 30 Jan 2007 ) : A20 ( L ) . Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library. 3 Mar. 2009 & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //find. galegroup. com/ovrc/infomark. make? & A ; contentSet=IAC-Documents & A ; type=retrieve & A ; tabID=T004 & A ; prodId=OVRC & A ; docId=A158559391 & A ; source=gale & A ; userGroupName=uphoenix & A ; version=1. 0 & gt ; Boyer. Paul S. “Nuclear Weapons. ” The Oxford Companion to the United States History. Oxford University Press. ( 2001 ) : 303 Department of Defense intelligence release.
( 2March 2007 ) : Reliable Replacement Warhead Design Decision Announced & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //find. galegroup. com/itx/start. make? prodId=ITOF & gt ; Global Security for America. “U. S. Strategic Commands Supports RRW Strategy. ” ( 2007 ) 2 March 2007 & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www. stratcom. mil/default. asp? page=news & A ; article=14 & gt ; GlobalSecuirty. org. “Weapons of Mass Destruction. Reliable Replacement Warhead. ” ( 2009 ) 11 March 2009 & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www. globalsecurity. org/wmd/systems/rrw. htm & gt ; Interavia Business and Technology. “Reliable Replacement Warhead. ” ( 2007 ) : 3 March 2009 & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //find. galegroup. com/itx/start. make? prodId=ITOF & gt ;