Despite Republicans crossing party lines recently to oppose certain Bush proposals in the domestic arena, the fear card continues to work in the defense arena, as the Senate voted 53-41 to reject Democratic attempts to eliminate $21M for research on low-yield nukes, and $47M to shorten the time to prepare for new nuclear testing and for preliminary environmental studies on building a plant to produce plutonium "pits" for nuclear bombs, both from a $27B energy and water projects bill. Fortunately, the House already eliminated the funding from their measure, so there's still a decent chance that by the time the House and Senate meet to negotiate the final measure, the funding might be eliminated completely. See NY Times article. The brilliant argument by arch-conservative Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, is: "In a world where you have terrorist organizations and terrorist-sponsored states and you no longer have the two great superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States, facing off against each other, the question is what kind of nuclear deterrent should we have." Explain to me again, Senator, how the threat of death by nuclear weapon has a "deterrent" effect upon a terrorist suicide bomber?
I would like to use a line from John Stewart on last night's show: "DO YOU REALLY THINK WE'RE ALL RETARDED!?!"
Perhaps they want something they can project near the mouth of a cave while limiting the damage to the environment. Not necessarily trying to deter anyone but to destroy their cavernous lairs. I don't know?
Re: Re: Senate backs "research" of New Nukes The first thing I think of when limiting environmental damage are nukes.
Re: Re: Re: Senate backs "research" of New Nukes Well certainly you can drop a less devastating weapon and create LESS damage than using a weapon that'll devastate an entire region. Not really too abstract a rationale.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Senate backs "research" of New Nukes Tactical nukes are just that...an abstarct idea. Besides, it all depends on what you call "damage" not even going into what you consider "LESS" damage. You must know of the other environmental factors linked to nukes than the point of impact destruction.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Senate backs "research" of New Nukes I see what you're saying. I'm not a expert in any way on nukes. Given the scenario in Tora Bora, though, wouldn't a small nuke been ideal for assuring those people (AL Queda/Taliban fighters/OBL) were killed, without using a weapon intended to destroy cities.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Senate backs "research" of New Nukes Militarily, it might be a viable option. Politically and diplomatically, it would be a disaster for any administration to use any kind of nuclear device. You think the world hates the US now. If the US used any kind of nuke, even the few nations that support US foreign policy would run for the hills. This is just nice juicy military pork.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Senate backs "research" of New Nukes You're probably right. I just hope we don't end up using one of these costly NUC-CLEAR weapons to blow up a tent ala Afghanistan.
This is the tip of the iceberg, people. We spend more money now each year on our nuclear weapons programs than we did during the Cold War. Read up on the Stockpile, Stewardship and Maintenance program. This will get you started: http://www.nap.edu/issues/15.3/mello.htm
Yes, adjusted for inflation. We spend more 2003 dollars on nuclear arms in 2003 than we spent 2003 dollars on nuclear arms than we did during the Cold War.
Yea, we should ditch our nukes because they are of no use to us in the war on terror. But then again Pyongyang and Tehran might find that move to be advantageous.Duh
I'm perfectly comfortable with this research. We can't possibly know every future threat. I'd much rather spend billions on military research than patrolling Iraq.
I agree with Mr. Reilly, we already have one of the best air forces in the world. Do we keep dumping money into new technologies? Absolutely. Its all about staying ahead of the game. Sure, we can already turn the whole planet green. But that is not what a tactical nuke is about. With regards to spending money on tactical nukes, I see nothing wrong with it. I mean we never now when we are going to be invaded by an alien race and when we are going to need tactical nukes to blow up the big brain bug.
> We can't possibly know every future threat. We already know the big future threat. The threat of people besides Americans controling oil. Nothing is more important than that. > I'd much rather spend billions on military research > than patrolling Iraq. What is the use of having fancy toys if the time comes to use them and you don't want to? The Pentagon should drop everything else first before giving up on Iraq. > Do we keep dumping money into new > technologies? Absolutely. Its all about staying > ahead of the game. There is no game. The game ended more than a decade ago.
Then why are you whining about spending money on our nuclear arsenal? You claim they are of no use, so i drew the conclusion that you wanted to dramatically reduce if not eliminate our arsenal.
Fair enough...you didn't say they were of no use...so why are you whining about our nuclear arms expenditures?