Bush revoked nuke bomb development ban

[flapcats]

So America will make mini-nukes, bunker busting nukes, (more?) briefcase nukes etc…

Great news. Super Hurray.

So, with lots of other countries discussing disarmament these new weapons will affirm the US’s nuke deterrent, since it won’t be so shy to (threaten to) use them.

However - these bombs will need TESTING, so the US will resume nuke testing and then France will say ‘Oi’ and start testing and than all the newly nuke’d up states will be testing their nukes. Great.

[World_Eater]

Yeah but think how many brown people we’ll be able to kill with one of those things. :rolleyes:

[Grrr]

Generals gathered in their masses,
Just like witches at black masses,
Evil minds that plot destruction,
Sorcerers of death construction…
Eh, typical. I’ve pretty much become numb from all the shit that’s been going on in our goverment…

[flapcats]

@SHAKES

Eh, typical. I’ve pretty much become numb from all the shit that’s been going on in our goverment…

Please Vote

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

Got a cite for that?

I have a cite for you: [

Currently the missiles are being gradually retired, with 17 withdrawn during 2003, leaving 29 missiles on alert at the beginning of 2004. All are to be removed from service by 2005.

](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG-118A_Peacekeeper)

And another:[

2002
October 1 - First Peacekeeper (MX) missile deactivated and shipped to Hill AFB, UT. The remaining Peacekeeper force will remain on alert as deactivations continue. Approximately one missile will be deactivated every 17-days until all 50-Peacekeeper missiles have been removed from service. This should take about three years to complete. First Peacekeeper (MX) silo to be deactivated was Silo S-7.

](http://www.geocities.com/peacekeeper_icbm/chronology.htm)
So now all you need to do is get me a cite that says that the US is engaging in the development of the weapons types you named and we’ll resolve this obvious conflict my cites have so obviously exposed.

[yojimbo]

Well Kerry said the same during the first and 2nd debate and Bush didn’t deny it. Didn’t you look at the debates?

Last November, months before the invasion of Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld casually told reporters during a flight to Chile that military strategists were examining ways to neutralize Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons. Among options studied were bunker-busting bombs that might have nuclear payloads.

Bunker-busters are heavy, missile-like bombs with hardened noses that penetrate the ground before exploding. No nuclear bunker-busters were employed in Iraq, although their use was considered there and in Afghanistan.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-06-nuclear-usat_x.htm

The Bush administration is pushing ahead with the development of a new generation of weapons, dubbed ‘mini-nukes’, that use nuclear warheads to penetrate underground bunkers.

Last week, it gave a quiet yet final go-ahead to a controversial research project into the bunker-buster. The move effectively ends a 10-year ban on research into ‘low-yield’ nuclear weapons. Critics fear it may lead other countries to push ahead with developing such weapons. It also comes at a highly sensitive time diplomatically, with the US lobbying countries such as Iran and North Korea to abandon their nuclear plans.

Bush plans new nuclear weapons

[Desmostylus]

@Airman Doors

So now all you need to do is get me a cite that says that the US is engaging in the development of the weapons types you named and we’ll resolve this obvious conflict my cites have so obviously exposed.

I’ll take up the challenge:

Our Hidden WMD Program
Why Bush is spending so much on nuclear weapons.
By Fred Kaplan
Friday, April 23, 2004

Measured in “real dollars” (that is, adjusting for inflation), this year’s spending on nuclear activities is equal to what Ronald Reagan spent at the height of the U.S.-Soviet standoff. It exceeds by over 50 percent the average annual sum ($4.2 billion) that the United States spent—again, in real dollars—throughout the four and a half decades of the Cold War.

There is no nuclear arms race going on now. The world no longer offers many suitable nuclear targets. President Bush is trying to persuade other nations—especially “rogue regimes”—to forgo their nuclear ambitions. Yet he is shoveling money to U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories as if the Soviet Union still existed and the Cold War still raged.

These are the findings of a virtually unnoticed report written by weapons analyst Christopher Paine, based on data from official budget documents, and released earlier this month by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The report raises anew a question that always springs to mind after a close look at the U.S. military budget: What the hell is going on here? Specifically: Do we really need to be spending this kind of money on nuclear weapons? What role do nuclear weapons play in 21st-century military policy? How many weapons do we need, to deter what sort of attack or to hit what sorts of targets, with what level of confidence, for what strategic and tactical purposes?

[yojimbo]

BTW FYI **Airman ** Kerry has said he will put a stop to this program as soon as he’s in office.

[legion]

@Airman Doors

Got a cite for that?

Senate OK’s ending ban on nuclear research.

[Metacom]

@Airman Doors

So now all you need to do is get me a cite that says that the US is engaging in the development of the weapons types you named and we’ll resolve this obvious conflict my cites have so obviously exposed.

First off, both of your cites discuss only a single class of ICBM–even with the decomissioning of the Peacekeeper missiles, we still have plenty of (over 500) Minuteman ICBM’s on land and plenty of Trident ICBM’s (~400?) in the water. Enough to give the world a pretty bad day.

On review, it looks like Desmo took care of my second point.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@yojimbo

Well Kerry said the same during the first and 2nd debate and Bush didn’t deny it. Didn’t you look at the debates?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-06-nuclear-usat_x.htm

Bush plans new nuclear weapons | World news | The Guardian

Hmmm. I remembered something about that but I thought it had been cancelled. I guess not. Of course, those cites are around a year old, so maybe they were re-thought and cancelled in that time. I could have sworn that they were.

If I may add my two cents, I must say that those are the stupidest ideas to ever come down the pike, and I’m not afraid to say so. It’s not sensible to inflame public sensibilities over a controversial enough subject just to get a little deeper into the ground. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

However, I saw nothing about “suitcase nukes” or tit-for-tat paranoid theories on world testing escalation. It’s amazing to me that someone could still be scared of nuclear war, or even nuclear weapons. They’re just large bombs with unique (albeit horrifying) secondary characteristics. But one thing comes out about anything nuclear and suddenly the loons come out with “suitcase bombs”. Does anyone else here really think that anyone can make a man-portable nuclear weapon? One that doesn’t actually look like a nuclear weapon? God, I hope not. I’d like to think that people are more rational than that.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Metacom

First off, both of your cites discuss only a single class of ICBM–even with the decomissioning of the Peacekeeper missiles, we still have plenty of (over 500) Minuteman ICBM’s on land and plenty of Trident ICBM’s (~400?) in the water. Enough to give the world a pretty bad day.

That is correct, but the reason why the Peacekeeper was chosen for decommissioning, even though they’re newer, was because the US is abiding with a ban on MIRVs. The Minuteman missile will be adapted to hold only one warhead, which would have been impossible with the Peacekeeper.

The Trident AND the Minuteman will soon need to be replaced, however, and I for one am of the mind that we know the physics cold so testing isn’t necessary, but a nuclear deterrent is necessary. But again, I saw noting about “suitcase bombs” or test escalation like the OP described. Did you?

[Desmostylus]

@Airman Doors

But one thing comes out about anything nuclear and suddenly the loons come out with “suitcase bombs”. Does anyone else here really think that anyone can make a man-portable nuclear weapon? One that doesn’t actually look like a nuclear weapon? God, I hope not. I’d like to think that people are more rational than that.

Those stupid fucking Republican Congressmen seem to believe it.

Sunday, Nov. 11, 2001 12:23 a.m. EST
Report: Probers Suspect Bin Laden Shipped Nukes to U.S.

In September, Rep. Christopher Shay, R-Conn., who has chaired 18 hearings on terrorism since 1998 as head of the House subcommittee on National Security, warned the bin Laden “suitcase nuke” scenario should be taken seriously.

[Metacom]

@Airman Doors

But again, I saw noting about “suitcase bombs” or test escalation like the OP described. Did you?

No–I just didn’t get using ICBM decomissioning as evidence that we aren’t developing new, smaller, nukes.

I agree that there’s no evidence we’re developing suitcase bombs, or that there will be test escalation (and frankly I don’t think increased testing would have appreciable negative consequences). That part of the OP was baseless, as far as I can tell.

[World_Eater]

@Airman Doors

It’s amazing to me that someone could still be scared of nuclear war, or even nuclear weapons. They’re just large bombs with unique (albeit horrifying) secondary characteristics.

So they’re the same as a normal bomb but totally different.

Why shouldn’t people worry about nuclear weapons?

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Desmostylus

Those stupid fucking Republican Congressmen seem to believe it.

I think this says it all.

[Desmostylus]

@Airman Doors

I think this says it all.

I agree.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@World Eater

So they’re the same as a normal bomb but totally different.

Why shouldn’t people worry about nuclear weapons?

Why should they? Do you worry about someone bombing your house every day? Of course not. Why? The likelihood that it will ever happen is absurdly low, so low that you’d have better odds on drowning in a slightly damp sponge. Why would you worry about a nuclear bomb, therefore? Only two have been used in 60 years for their intended purpose, out of how many? Nothing to worry about, I say.

[Johnny_L.A]

@SHAKES

Generals gathered in their masses,
Just like witches at black masses,
Evil minds that plot destruction,
Sorcerers of death construction…
Eh, typical. I’ve pretty much become numb from all the shit that’s been going on in our goverment…

There have been generals who thought the use of first-strike nuclear weapons is okay. IIRC MacArthur and LeMay come to mind. But I’d trust a general not to use a nuke before I’d trust a politician. Ozzy should have written “Politicians in their masses…”

[Aldebaran]

@Airman Doors

Why should they? Do you worry about someone bombing your house every day?

People in Iraq do.

Why would you worry about a nuclear bomb, therefore?

Seen the lunaticism and the inmeasurable arrogance and lunatical power hunber and bloodthirst of the current US administration: I DO.
Salaam. A