A new era of nuclear weapons . . . Thanks, W . . .

[reprehensor]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2003%2F12%2F07%2FMNG5Q3GH941.DTL

Congress, with only a limited debate, has given the Bush administration a green light for the biggest revitalization of the country's nuclear weapons program since the end of the Cold War, leaving many Democrats and even some hawkish Republicans seething.

"This has been a good year," said Linton Brooks, the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which develops and manages the country's nuclear weapons arsenal. "I'm pretty happy we essentially got what we wanted."

Reversing a decade of restraint in nuclear weapons policy, Congress agreed to provide more than $6 billion for research, expansion and upgrades in the country's nuclear capabilities. While Congress approved large sums to maintain the existing nuclear arsenal even during the Clinton years, this year's increases will finance multiyear programs to design a new generation of warheads as well as more sophisticated missiles, bombers and re-entry vehicles to deliver them.

"This is a fairly radical new way of thinking about things," Brooks said, adding that it amounted to "a more fundamental shift in the way we look at this than many people realize."

[Dudley_DUright]

1. I just posted this in LBN, but it deserves serious discussion here as well

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=257453

An technical article published recently in Physics Today illustrates the dangers of these weapons in terms of nuclear fallout.

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-11/p32.html

[reprehensor]

2. Sorry Dudley...

So many posts, so little time...

[Dudley_DUright]

3. No problem

My thread in LBN is dropping like a rock anyway. So many outrages, so little time. I do have to quote one statement from the Physics Today article that I posted.

Crucial to the debate, therefore, is an understanding of the capabilities and limitations of earth-penetrating nuclear weapons. How deeply, for example, can missiles really burrow into reinforced concrete? How deeply buried must these weapons be for the surrounding rock to contain the blast? Would the underground temperatures of a nuclear blast sterilize chemical and biological agents?3 This article addresses these questions and explains that the goal of minimal collateral damage falls squarely in the wishful-thinking category.

Great, now we have "faith based" physics to go along with "faith based" economics.

[Lithos]

5. It's a simple sounding solution

For simple minds.

[wtmusic]

4. great links

thanks!