America’s nuclear arsenal

Trump: “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability”

“Why”, you ask “Cold war is over. Surely we have more nukes than we know what to do with.”

America’s nuclear weapons are, for the most part, thermonuclear, and need a little bit of tritium to get them to ignite.

Tritium has a half life of twelve years, and due to technological decline, we have not been able to make tritium for quite a while.

So the number of nuclear weapons that we can ignite has been halving every twelve years.

To greatly expand our weapon supply, need to resume production of tritium, which the Obama regime has been attempting to do – so far unsuccessfully We should also resume testing to try to create thermonuclear weapons that do not need tritium detonators, but if the US was unable to do that back when it could put a man on the moon, its no longer great descendants might find that difficult.

Expect universal outrage and ridicule at Trump’s statement, but when under Obama we tried and failed to resume production of tritium, greatly expanding our nuclear capabilities was what we were trying and failing to do.

The last man on the moon is now eighty two years old, the tallest building in the US was built in 1973, and when we tried to replace the two towers, we were unable to do so. Dysgenic decline, promoting women and coloreds to posts beyond their capability, “disparate impact” prohibits employers from choosing the best, and superior expertise is deemed to be mansplaining. Google has been purging its best engineers, an ailment I attribute to the problem that smart males get up the noses of dumb blue haired social justice warriors. Recall that Obama could not get its Obamacare website up until they threw in the towel and accepted an all white and east asian, all male, team to get it up.

If we are going to greatly expand our nuclear capabilities, need to send women back to the kitchen and keep them barefoot and pregnant. That is the lesson of Team Obama’s efforts to get a website up.

53 Responses to “America’s nuclear arsenal”

  1. Jack Highlands says:

    It is much more important to wear an acceptable shirt than to manufacture tritium.

  2. vxxc2014 says:

    Let the man get into office.

    It’s amazing what leadership can do especially when the led have been abused by and starved of it for a time. Never mind a generation.

    Yes we need to modernize our nukes, so apparently does Russia or Putin wouldn’t spend the money.

    Russia remains a defensive power and has been since Stalin took the reins.
    It’s a historical norm.

  3. Randy the Random says:

    Jim, you appear to be the blogger who is right on the largest number of issues.

    Heartiste gets the female problem, but is hellbent on the (((elite))) theory of decline.

    I find it ironic that we are besieged by Muslims, whose only virtue is that they are the only masculine culture left on the planet. They do nothing else right, but they uphold masculine virtue with barbarism. It appears that is all that is required for a society to flourish and spread.

    This is evolution at work. In a competition of societies, the most masculine ones will dominate. Even a slightly less masculine society will eventually fall prey to a more masculine society given enough time.

    More masculine societies have higher birthrates, higher border stability, and higher expansion rates into enemy territory.

    The reason the Muslims have failed to spectacularly is due to the fact that on every other measure of masculinity, such as creativity and cooperation, they fail. But on the most basic measure, which is control of female reproductive choice, they succeed.

    Either we control our females, or they lead us to ruin. It really is that simple. I understand that the alt-right an ethno-nationalists don’t understand this, but I wish there was some way to make them see the light. Countries like Sweden, Canada, etc were lily white before the onset of feminism. Now they are browning rapidly. Ethnic purity is completely insufficient for civilizational success. Without patriarchal policies, a society is doomed whether it be fully ethnically homogeneous or not.

    • they aren’t that masculine ..Muslims fail because most of the are just stupid and incompetent, low IQs. Their culture also doesn’t punish incompetence.

      • Randy the Random says:

        Never said they were smart. They can be incompetent on every single metric, but if they control female reproduction, they will reproduce like rabbits and spread across the globe unless they clash with another society that controls female reproduction.

        You cannot incentivize men with anything other than virgin, obedient, faithful brides. The sexual impulse is the engine of civilization, and if it is not channeled within patriarchal monogamy, it will fade or destroy itself.

        Men won’t sacrifice their lives at work or on the battlefield for another man’s glory unless there’s something in it for them. And the only something worth sacrificing your life for is a virgin bride who you’ve impregnated with your seed.

        Until the west realizes this, they will keep failing. Women as a group, want the complete opposite of this. They want maximum male competition. Why do you think they constantly vote to bring in foreign male invaders?

        Foolish men think that “their” women are their allies. Nothing could be further from the truth. Women want men to fight for them. The more fighting, the better, because they get a better tested product. They always want more men to compete against each other, hence they will import as many men as they can. If they get raped, so be it. If rapists aren’t executed, then rape is a surprisingly successful mating strategy.

        But yes, I know I’m triggering you all. Biology doesn’t care about morals, ethics, tradition or any other nonsense man made pipe dream. It cares about semen in fertile wombs, and nothing else. If your tribe of men is not depositing semen into more fertile wombs than your competitors, you are losing.

        And by that metric, we are losing spectacularly. We deserve to perish. Our ancestors crushed their enemies, and heard the lamentations of their women as they inseminated them. The only way we survive is by returning to our roots.

        • viking says:

          Whites dont need to win a demographic war to hold their territory,we have the technology, its willpower we lack. Most white nations would actually be more pleasant if less crowded. Removing the non whites would have so many benefits, the cost of diversity is staggering orders of magnitude more than simply the welfare.The security effect both physical and economic and other effects from deniggerization would surely increase white population.Probably to the point we would need to manage it, we should manage it anyway to raise average IQ.Few women buy into feminism, anti masculinism is a bigger and separate problem.Look this is not to say it wouldnt be good to actually take the vote away from women just that its not an issue you can start a revolution with and its not an issue to strategically begin a march back through the institutions with. Its actually the toughest problem to solve.It might simply solve itself if the rest were addressed. Its a lot easier to get your own woman to stay in the kitchen than it is to make all women do anything.Women actually want to be made to do things but few urban women have men up to the task. Yes yes if they were not working etc,it wasnt goria Steinem that put them to work or keeps them there she only tries to make them happy about it rather unsuccessfully.Follow the money

        • pdimov says:

          “Men won’t sacrifice their lives at work or on the battlefield for another man’s glory unless there’s something in it for them. And the only something worth sacrificing your life for is a virgin bride who you’ve impregnated with your seed.”

          “But yes, I know I’m triggering you all.”

          blog jim com, home of the easily triggered. Don’t flatter yourself too much. Biological reductionism is not rocket science.

          • pdimov says:

            On Spandrell’s blog, B recommended a book that is a fairly good critique of biological reductionism:


            • Randy the Random says:

              From the preface of your book:

              “I do deny that natural selection is going on within our species now, and that it ever
              went on in our species, at any time of which anything is known. ”

              HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA! I do deny sir, that the earth doth revolve around the sun!!! I also deny its sphericity with great vigor!!

              Wake up:


              I thought neoreaction was about truth, not fantasy?

              • pdimov says:

                You need to read more than just the preface.

                • Jack Highlands says:

                  If the preface is either that false or that deceptive, the rest of the book is probably equally false or deceptive. At the very least it’s not worth others wasting their time over until you abstract portions of it here to demonstrate its value to us.

            • peppermint says:

              You can implant a google embryo in a White woman’s womb and she will raise it like it’s hers even though it doesn’t have any of her DNA in it. That doesn’t mean family isn’t the people who are directly related to you, it means that people use imperfect heuristics to figure out how they should treat each other.

              One such heuristic is to take seriously people who signal reliability by reciting insane propaganda and comfort by calling for the genocide of people like them.

              Gas the christcucks, weltanschauung war now.


          • Randy the Random says:

            My mistake, the current system is working flawlessly!

            Full steam ahead, fellow Janissaries! Let the negros have the women, we will fight to defend their freedom! Cucks, to me!

            “Biological reductionism” – LOL. Tell me oh transcended one, how long has your spirit traversed the ethereal universe that is above the flesh? How long have communed with the souls of the cosmos, beyond time?

            We are biological machines, and the second we forget that is the second we fall for marxist utopianism.

            I am so sick and tired of utopians. Utopian bible thumpers, utopian marxists, utopian libertarians. We are fucking primates, and the second we forget that is the second we begin the long spiral into weakness and decay.

            Strength is the only virtue nature understands. Men are the only creature capable of strength. The strongest will thrive, and the weak will perish. Regardless of how you justify your weakness, nature will eradicate you all the same.

            Wake up.

            • pdimov says:

              “Tell me oh transcended one, how long has your spirit traversed the ethereal universe that is above the flesh?”

              I’m an atheist.

            • pdimov says:

              “Full steam ahead, fellow Janissaries!”

              They were just the first example that came to mind. The point being that men do follow their leaders in battle even without being promised anything.

              Stated more bluntly, your idea that men will not slaughter Muslims unless promised virgin brides is completely wrong. Men will slaughter Muslims without being promised anything and without even being lead into doing so. That’s because slaughtering Muslims is its own reward.

              But, you’ll say, why don’t Germans then slaughter Muslims?

              Because the German state and the German press work overtime to prevent it. German elites are sitting on a powder keg and know it.

              • Randy the Random says:

                So let’s say the Germans slaughter the Muslims, go back home and return to their 1.1 birth rate. Their women remain promiscuous, and German men see no point in investing in offspring.

                Within a few generations, they will disappear from the face of the earth, whereas the pockets of Muslims which persisted will have multiplied to the point where they are legion.

                Civilization is patriarchy. Patriarchy is the complete control of female reproductive choice by a responsible male. The father protects the daughter’s virginity, the father then chooses the husband, and the husband shepherd’s the wife’s sexuality until death does them part.

                There is no other way. All other path lead to societal suicide. We know by now since we’ve tried them all.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Europe has the power to simply kill all Muslims in the world before its population significantly decreases. That is a messier method of replacement than birthrate differential but the possibility exists.

                  That was more or less the Nazi solution to this problem.

                • pdimov says:

                  Jim has written repeatedly about his suggested solution to the fertility problem – controlling the female reproductive choices.

                  But the current Muslim “wins” have not much to do with it. They are fully explained by treacherous elites and Saudi oil.

                • jim says:

                  They have population pressure, we have population vacuum. I would say our current troubles have a lot to do with TFR. People are flowing from where they are breeding to where the natives are not breeding.

                  If white TFR was five, which is probably what it would be if we had the pre MacArthur Japanese patriarchy or the eighteenth century English patriarchy, whites would be emigrating to every place that lacked the will or the military capability to stop us, and interfering in the politics of those countries to our favor.

                  Russians have had nonwhite empire for a thousand years, and are still white, because until quite recently, they were breeding.

                • pdimov says:

                  “People are flowing from where they are breeding to where the natives are not breeding.”

                  They aren’t flowing, they are being transported by NGOs. The population pressure has been the same for decades but they only started flowing recently.


                • pdimov says:

                  Japan TFR 1.4. Nothing flows into Japan. Odd, that.

                • jim says:

                  Japanese have the will, but with a TFR of 1.4, will eventually lose the capability.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          White women are on a sex strike because they know that it is white, anti-white, treacherous men who are pushing the genocide of their race. Do you expect them to come out and say that directly to, R.? You don’t know the nature of women if you expect them to be less surreptitious.

          However, these white women have told me in private and now I am telling you in public, that, like those opposed to the sale of liquor in the 20th Century, “Those whose lips touch liquor shall never touch mine” the white women of today are saying behind closed doors, “Those whose lips push White Genocide shall never touch mine”. I support them as they have, after all, correctly stereotyped the average white man as being sick and self-hating, white anti-white traitors. Why would anyone, especially a member of the weaker sex, want to be in a relationship with somebody who has an increased chance of disliking her for her own white race? This is known as the white women sex strike against White Genocide. #WWSSAWhiteGenocide


          • Cavalier says:

            White women are on a sex strike, you say? I must not have noticed. Maybe they aren’t on a sex strike against me.

    • safespaceplaypen says:

      I think your typical response would be that technology has enabled us to step away from the masculine barbarism that has protected us in the past. I think this is a ridiculous position, but it is a position a lot of people maintain. I also think that many would equate “barbarism” with “immoral”. Likewise, many would also equate “civil” or “civility” with “moral”. None of this is logical, but it does work in convincing people that responding in a dominant or aggressive manner is “wrong”, whereas responding in a peaceful or quiet manner is “right”. I’m sure one could go deeper and deeper into why this is, and how we’ve come to the point where gay marriage, working women, pussy hipster males, etc. are now considered key aspects of a civil, moral and good society.

      All of the above requires a lot of rigorous argumentation in order to properly sift out and refute, none of which I feel like doing right now. But the fact that in modern times we consider “barbaric” == “traditionally masculine” == “immoral” and “civil” == “feminine” == “moral”, really does give you something to think about while driving home from work.

      • harambe says:

        “I think your typical response would be that technology has enabled us to step away from the masculine barbarism that has protected us in the past. I think this is a ridiculous position, but it is a position a lot of people maintain.”

        Just so. Mind, things could get mighty interesting as CRISPR advances and so on. Technological developments that alter the ownership of the means of reproduction are in the cards.

    • Jack Highlands says:

      The more based members of the Alt Right are beginning to understand the importance of patriarchy as the intersection of sex and race. And there is anecdotal evidence that, on the Alt Right, this emphasis on patriarchy is inversely proportional to age.

      Even three years ago, White Nationalist boomers were very often losers: many were childless functional atheists who understandably came to feel race as their only way of participating in the future after death.

      Now, Gen X and Y White Nationalists who are practically the last admirable specimens of their era are the ones teaching their elders about the woman question. And many based normies of all generations are shifting right.

  4. Oliver Cromwell says:

    This is a problem but I am not sure I buy the notion that Obama is trying on this and failing. It was Obama who canceled the Reliable Replacement Warhead program in 2009. It looks to me like Obama has set up a decoy nuclear overhaul program that looks enough like the real thing to deflect complaints that the US is disarming on the installment plan while delivering so little that the US is in fact disarming on the installment plan.

    If that is so Trump will have no problem reversing this.

    FWIW I have a tiny amount of experience with non-defense DoE facilities and they are not in the slightest diverse.

    • peppermint says:

      In 2009 Obama was a Nobel-winning nuclear disarmament peacemaker. Later on the Democrats realized that the F22 was canceled and the F35 sucked, the military can’t be allowed to be effective so nuclear weapons are the only thing the US has to fight Russia or really any White country threatening to secede.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        Do they want the US military to be effective? I believe no.

        You argue that they need the US military to be effective. You are probably right.

        Who said they are competent or organised?

        They are drifting towards, and it was always obvious that disarmament would drift towards, a world in which there are lots of nuclear arsenals of insufficient size to ensure mutual destruction and of uncertain usability. The conditions most likely to result in devastating nuclear war. Yet I have never met an insincere believer in nuclear disarmament.

  5. Alan J. Perrick says:

    The whole thing with President Obama was that it was, intentionally for some and instinctually for more, engineered toward decline. Even the irretrievably browning-out societies of yore—like the Indians and the Egyptians—had white leadership until they could no longer select administrators from the local population… Thus it was that the premature selection of a mulatto was likely a product of anti-white media monopoly rather than a result of running out of whites. There is still a significant and high-profile white minority in the U.S., for now…


  6. Dave says:

    And we just put a spacecraft in orbit around Jupiter with solar panels the size of tennis courts because decades ago we stopped making plutonium-238 for RTGs, and Russia has no more to sell us. More distant planets are now inaccessible.

  7. TheBigH says:

    What’s your source on our inability to make tritium?

    Just curious.

    • jim says:

      Well initially we were supposedly so sophisticated peaceful and advanced that we did not need to make tritium any more, much as we supposedly did not need to make plutonium 238 any more, and supposedly don’t need fighters that can fly at mach three any more, and supposedly don’t need to build tall buildings any more, and don’t need to send humans to explore the solar system any more – and then Obama ordered some more tritium made, and the project is over schedule and over budget and no tritium is as yet forthcoming.

      But if you want links for all that stuff, well I have been tracking technological decline, but all that stuff was some time back. I would have to search it up just as you would.

        • jim says:


        • Cavalier says:

          I find it extremely interesting that the year given as the cessation of our production of tritium corresponds with the year of death of the great Professor Richard P. Feynman. This suggests to me that our ability to produce tritium and other nuclear products was tied up in the generation of physicists and government administrators which first gave us the nuke. Those men all having died off, we find ourselves up shit creek without a paddle. Interesting to me is why Russia has not lost its ability; Putin is probably the answer, though perhaps if they had ever stopped tritium production, they too might have lost it as we apparently have.

          • Markus says:

            It’s no coincidence that NASA went back to twiddling their thumbs and blowing up manned spacecrafts after their nazi scientists either retired or died out.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Who knows if they have or not? Russia had so many warheads in 1900 relative to the number of delivery systems it has been able to maintain that it could accept several 12-year halvings of its strategic nuclear arsenal without any impact on effectiveness.

        • Alrenous says:

          1945: NSF established.
          1945 + 40 = 1985, so roughly last pre-war-trained scientist retired roughly then.

          Every moment spent learning to grease the grant committee is a moment not spent learning how tritium reactions work.

          1988: last tritium reactor shut down for ‘safety’.

      • Zach says:

        Wiki had some avg general info. I can’t believe they made watches out of this stuff.

        • peppermint says:

          Why not? It has a short half life, a low energy decay, if it gets leaked it gets diluted immediately because it’s water, and since it’s water it needs to be held in special configurations or all the betas get absorbed by the other molecules.

          It should be used for cell phones. And if drug dealers extract it and start assassinating each other, bonus.

  8. Cavalier says:

    I’m skeptical of the moon landings.

    Though, totally with you on the need to keep women barefoot and pregnant and chained to the kitchen stove.

  9. Jamie_NYC says:

    Jim, are sure the tritium is required for thermonuclear weapons? What I learned in school was that fission (Pu, or U) bomb serves as primer for the fusion (lithium deutheride) material.

    Great blog, btw., I discovered it a couple of months ago and went back and read all the posts of the last several years.

    • jim says:

      It is required for our nuclear weapons. Whether it should be is another question. But it is tricky to detonate lithium deuteride without some supplemental tritium.

  10. arqiduka says:

    If this is an issue for the US, how much graver it should be for all the other nuclear powers (but Russia) with only 300 or so nukes.

    • jim says:

      They have white male teams manufacturing tritium.

      • arqiduka says:

        The UK? France? Aren’t they even deeper in this silly lefty nonsense than the US?

        • TheBigH says:

          What’s your source on our inability to make tritium?

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Affirmative action is much worse in the US than in the UK or France (and possibly worse than in any country).

          The US is also worse in terms of bureaucratic fragmentation. France is the best, where the bureaucracy is homogeneous, nationally centralised, and largely above the law. That is why France can have a functional, cheap, all-nuclear grid. The UK is somewhere in between, with very weak sub-national government but a moderately fragmented national bureaucracy.

  11. Davecdell says:

    Right on, Jim, but sadly so.

Leave a Reply