PDA

View Full Version : What the world needs now, is nukes, sweet nukes


a_unique_person
7th March 2003, 12:45 AM
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826526103.html

The war is about rights and peace, and while we are at it, lets develop some more nukes.



The Bush administration has formally proposed lifting a decade-long ban on the development of small, low-yield nuclear weapons, a move that arms control advocates predicted could touch off a new global arms race.

The proposal to allow development of so-called "mini-nukes" is contained in a draft of the 2004 Defense Authorisation bill that the Pentagon sent to Congress this week. The weapons would have an explosive yield of less than 5 kilotonnes - about one-third the size of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 and far smaller than most current nuclear weapons.

Some policy-makers and military planners have suggested that such weapons could be used to eliminate nuclear, chemical or biological weapons that may be produced by nations such as Iraq, North Korea or Iran.

Bush administration officials have said there is no need for the smaller nuclear bombs right now, but weapons scientists at the nation's nuclear laboratories, such as Lawrence Livermore in California and Los Alamos in New Mexico, should not be prevented from exploring the options in case mini-nukes are needed in the future.

"My personal view is that anything that inhibits thinking about the future should be looked at sceptically," Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, said in response to a question about the ban on low-yield weapons during a Senate hearing last week.

Pentagon officials could not be reached for comment on the proposal yesterday.

Representative Ellen Tauscher, a California Democrat, blasted the Bush administration for proposing to develop new nuclear weapons while it is on the verge of war with Iraq in order to prevent that country from developing such weapons. But they will have a tall task with Republicans now in control of both chambers of Congress as well as the White House.

"The American people I think would be absolutely apoplectic, and should be, to find out this administration is on the one hand holding people responsible for weapons of mass destruction but at the same time we are basically starting a new arms race," she said. "I still can't find anybody in the military who can tell me why they need them."

corplinx
7th March 2003, 12:50 AM
While in the senate:

http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80487,00.html

"Senate Ratifies Arms Reduction Treaty"

I can see why the arsenal that will be left will be changed from long trip to short haul. Makes more strategic sense with the cold war over and all.

Wayne Grabert
7th March 2003, 01:14 AM
"My personal view is that anything that inhibits thinking about the future should be looked at sceptically," Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, said... ...unless it inhibits thinking about the threat of global warming. (Why should we worry about global warming? It's nothing a nuclear winter won't fix!)

How much damage is this idiot Bush going to do in four years?

Let's think about the Republican Party. After a purely partisan impeachment, a Supreme Court decision that threw out the constitution to install a chimpanzee as president, a foreign policy that makes the United States a rogue state that starts wars of conquest, the Patriot (sic) Act, further attempts to scuttle civil liberties and the Posse Comitatus Act, faith-based initiatives, nominations of repugnant extremists to seats on federal appeals courts, the dismantling of due process, and the extreme secrecy of a government behind closed doors, it is clear that the Republican party is at war against everything this country is supposed to be. I've been saying it for the last five or six years: the Republican Party is the United States' (and now the world's) worst enemy. That is not hyperbole. It is the truth.

a_unique_person
7th March 2003, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by corplinx
While in the senate:

http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80487,00.html

"Senate Ratifies Arms Reduction Treaty"

I can see why the arsenal that will be left will be changed from long trip to short haul. Makes more strategic sense with the cold war over and all.

ever heard of an arms race? with MAD gone, the imperative for everyone to get nukes will be increased if they are much more likely to be used.