Strange How This Generation Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

[bigtree]

The Bush regime today took the lid off of their blueprint for rebuilding the U.S. nuclear weapons complex and declared their intention to put the cold-war facility back in the business of building bombs.

The nuclear hawks want the ability to produce 125 new nuclear bombs a year by 2022. How did it come to this?

The Bush administration's nuclear program is a shell game with their ambitions hidden within the Energy and Defense bills, most under the guise of research. Their proposals originated in a position paper which is referenced in the Energy Policy Act of 2003, entitled, "A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the United States by 2010".

The nuclear industry, along with government supporters, developed a roadmap for the realization of these goals. They intend to portray nukes as a safe, clean alternative to CO2 based plants. The energy bill references the "Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Program."

This is a determined, deliberate hard sell to get the nation back in the nuclear game. The nuclear provisions in the Energy bill, now in congressional conference are a tough read but they are designed to confuse.

The legislation designates INEEL, The Idaho Engineering and Environmental Laboratories, as the lead facility for nuclear R&D. This has been the nation's primary lab for all of the nuclear madness since 1952. INEEL's primary function since the mid 70's was the clean-up of their own toxic waste. This clean-up is still going on. There is money allocated in this bill for that.

New plants are contemplated in the Energy and Defense legislation which would utilize the new generation of recycled nuclear fuels (MOX mixed-oxide, hydrogen based, depleted uranium, etc.). These centers will almost certainly be formatted to accommodate the next generation of nuclear weapons, such as, mini tactical nukes and bunker- busters.

INEEL will undoubtably be at the center of this effort.

At the end of the decade support for nuclear energy was on the decline because of waste and safety issues and disarmament. Right before Bush II got in office, the industry, still fat from clean-up money sought to bolster their flagging industry. (INEEL gets 70% of their funding for waste disposal) Waste storage had become so controversial that it had soured the public to the idea of more nukes and more nuke plants. (Yucca Mountain, storage sites in New Mexico, transportation, safety issues, etc.).

So, they began promoting the view that the 'spent' nuclear fuel from decommissioned weapons and nuclear power plants could be broken down and reconstituted for weapons (depleted uranium) and a new generation of nuclear plants which would accommodate (recycle) and use the waste instead of immobilizing it in glass and storing it.

The industry makes the dubious claim that the recycled waste keeps it out of the hands of terrorists and makes proliferation more difficult. It will more likely disperse the waste and create more opportunity for abuse or mishap. But, they are pressing on, perhaps emboldened by the lack of effective opposition, or maybe it's just the last gasp of a fracturing plutocracy as they rape the Treasury to benefit their military industry benafactors.

I often wonder why there was no massive outcry from the public as Bush packed the government with military industry cronies from the start of his administration. I'm equally puzzled why we seemed to shrug off the scrapping of a generation of nuclear disarmament without so much as a blink as the Bush regime continues to advance their plans for a new generation of nuclear weaponry with new justifications for its use.

People of my generation, and the ones before mine fought a valiant battle against nuclear weapons. Perhaps the desire grew out of our childhood spent crouching under our school desks every Wednesday or Friday as the air raid siren blared out its nuclear drill. 'Duck and cover!' counseled Bert the animated turtle in the '60's era filmstrip. I grew to fear and hate communists and dread the inevitable nuclear attack.



The Japanese started campaigning against nuclear weapons in 1946 after the U.S. dropped the bomb on them. Citizens' groups in Hiroshima started a mass movement after March 1954, when a U.S. nuclear test dropped radiation on the crew of a Japanese fishing boat, the Lucky Dragon, and citizens of Bikini. An petition was drawn up and signed by 32 million people in the world's largest anti-nuclear protest. In August 1955 the First World Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs met in Hiroshima. The Japan Council Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs (Gensuikyo) was organized in Japan at the same time.

In the years that followed we saw the enactment of the Partial Test Ban Treaty; the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties (I and II); the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty; the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (I and II); and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

These important restraints on the proliferation and spread of nuclear weaponry did not occur in a vacuum. These restraints were the result of direct action by communities and individuals engaging in massive, worldwide campaigns of public protest, over the strenuous objections of ruling parties and government powers. Notable among the modern nuclear resistors in the United States, included the Federation of American Scientists, the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE), Women Strike for Peace, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign.

In 1980 Randall Caroline Forsberg, Executive Director of the Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies, wrote the "Call to Halt the Nuclear Arms Race which launched the national Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign. In 1989 Forsberg briefed BushI and his Cabinet officials on US-Soviet arms control issues. In 1995 she was appointed by President Clinton to the Advisory Committee of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. In March 1981, representatives from over 30 states met at Georgetown University in a campaign for a comprehensive nuclear freeze between the U.S. and Soviet Union.

Although Reagan deployed nuclear missiles to Western Europe during his term, in October 1983, he proposed eliminating all nuclear weapons in a speech in January 1984. Earlier, in April 1982, obviously affected by the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign, he had pronounced that "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And, he also improbably declared, "To those who protest against nuclear war, I can only say: 'I'm with you!'"

Gorbachev subsequently initiated a unilateral Soviet nuclear testing moratorium and decided against building a Star Wars anti-missile system. Reagan refused to abandon the U.S. version of Star Wars, but the disarmament die had been cast. Gorbachev put the U.S. on the defensive by exercising what was termed the 'zero option', agreeing to remove all nuclear missiles from Europe.

In late 1984, twenty-two people got themselves arrested as they blocked the entrance to the Great Lakes Naval Training Center in Wake Forest, Illinois to protest U.S. warships in Central America and to protest the Navy’s part in spreading weapons and ammunition to the countries in the region. Sixteen went to trial, charges against eight were dropped and a ninth was dismissed. Seven protesters stood trial in the People v. Jarka No. 002170 in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Waukegan, Illinois.

After a one-week trial defendants were found “not guilty” by the jury. The judge in the case, Alphonse F. Witt, gave the following instruction to the jury regarding international law:

— International law is binding on the United States and on the State of Illinois.

— The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is a war crime or an attempted war crime because such use would violate inter­national law by causing unnecessary suffering, failure to dis­tinguish between combatants and noncombatants, and poisoning targets by radiation.
(Source: Robert Aldridge and Virginia Stark, “Nuclear War, Citizen Intervention, and the Necessity Defense,” Santa Clara Law Review 26, no. 2 : 324—325.)

The Jarka trial served as the basis for the defense of subsequent actions and protests against the Reagan administration's escalating militarism, mindless military buildup, and meddling military interventions abroad.

In the years that followed the anti-nuclear activism, New Zealand banned nuclear warships from their ports, Australia banned the testing of MX missiles, India halted work on nuclear weapons, and called for nuclear disarmament, the Philippines voted for a no nuke constitution and closed down U.S. military bases harboring nuclear weapons. South Africa abandoned an infant nuclear weapons program. BushI was intimidated into unilaterally withdrawing short-range missiles from Western Europe.

Later there were the influential protests at the Nevada Test Site which fostered a Nevada-based, Semipalatinsk nuclear disarmament movement in the Soviet Union which led to the closure of the Soviet nuclear test sites.

In 1992 underground nuclear testing was halted for nine months, and stringent restrictions were enacted on further U.S. testing, and test ban negotiations and an end to U.S. testing by late 1996 were initiated.

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was achieved, despite resistance from Democrats including candidate Clinton during his presidential campaign. In spite of the resistance, anti-nuclear Congressmen and women organized a test ban and the Clinton administration extended the U.S. nuclear testing moratorium, encouraging a worldwide treaty. In September 1996, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was signed by several nuclear and non-nuclear countries.

That was then . . .

Now, we have been made to endure the mindless idiocy of BushII. For the first time since the U.S. banned the production of nuclear weapons in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; signed by the U.S. and Russia in 1968, entered into force in 1970; and since the moratorium on nuclear testing, which has been in place since 1992, the nuclear arms race has been restarted by the Bush administration, aided in part by an underground Pentagon campaign.

Gen. Lee Butler, of the Strategic Air Command, along with former Air Force Secretary Thomas Reed, and Col. Michael Wheeler, made a report in 1991 which recommended the targeting of our nuclear weaponry at "every reasonable adversary around the globe." The report warned of nuclear weapons states which are likely to emerge." They were aided in their pursuit by, John Deutch, President Clinton's choice for Defense Secretary; Fred Iklé, former Deputy Defense Secretary, associated with Jonathan Pollard; future CIA Director R. James Woolsey; and Condoleezza Rice, who was on the National Security Council Staff, 1989-1991.

The new nuke report recommended that U.S. nuclear weapons be re-targeted, where U.S. forces faced conventional "impending annihilation ... at remote places around the globe," according to William M. Arkin and Robert S. Norris, in their criticism of the report in the April 1992 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ("Tiny Nukes").

At the same time, two Los Alamos (Lockheed) nuclear weapons scientists, Thomas Dowler and Joseph Howard, published an article in 1991 in the Strategic Review, titled "Countering the Threat of the Well-Armed Tyrant: A Modest Proposal for Smaller Nuclear Weapons." They argued that, "The existing U.S. nuclear arsenal had no deterrent effect on Saddam and is unlikely to deter a future tyrant."

They advocated for "the development of new nuclear weapons of very low yields, with destructive power proportional to the risks we will face in the new world environment," and they specifically called for the development and deployment of "micro-nukes" (with explosive yield of 10 tons), "mini-nukes" (100 tons), and "tiny-nukes" (1 kiloton).

Their justification for the smaller nuclear weapons was their contention that no President would authorize the use of the nuclear weapons in our present arsenal against Third World nations. "It is precisely this doubt that leads us to argue for the development of sub-kiloton weapons," they wrote.

In a White House document created in April 2000, "The United States of America Meeting its Commitment to Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons," the administration stated that, "as the United States reduces the numbers of its nuclear weapons, it is also transforming the means to build them."

Over the past decade, the United States has dramatically changed the role and mission of its nuclear-weapon complex from weapon research, development, testing, and production to weapon dismantlement, conversion for commercial use, and stockpile stewardship.

That was his father's nuclear program. George II wants bombs.

"The Bush administration has directed the military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, and to build new, smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations," according to a Pentagon report uncovered by the Los Angeles Times.

The report, which was provided to Congress on Jan. 8, 2003 says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Iran and Libya.

It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack, in retaliation for attack with nuclear biological or chemical weapons, or in the event of ‘surprising military developments.' The new report, signed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, is being used by the U.S. Strategic Command in the preparation of a nuclear war plan.

As reported by the World Policy Institute, the National Institute for Public Policy's, January 2001 report on the "rationale and requirements" for U.S. nuclear forces, was used as the model for the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review, which advocated an expansion of the U.S. nuclear "hit list" and the development of a new generation of "usable," lower-yield nuclear weapons.

Three members of the study group that produced the NIPP report - National Security Council members Stephen Hadley, Robert Joseph, and Stephen Cambone, a deputy undersecretary of defense for policy - are now directly involved in implementing the Bush nuclear policy. Stephen Hadley, who replaced Rice as National Security Advisor, co-wrote a National institute for Public Policy paper portraying a nuclear bunker-buster bomb as an ideal weapon against the nuclear, chemical or biological weapons stockpiles of rouge nations such as Iraq. "Under certain circumstances," the report said, "very severe nuclear threats may be needed to deter any of these potential adversaries."

Reuters reported on the Bush administration plans to promote and push for the expansion of the nation's nuclear arsenal with the unveiling of an initiative produced by the ‘Defense Science Board'. The supporting document, named the “Future Strategic Strike Force”, outlines a reconfigured nuclear arsenal made up of smaller-scale missiles which could be targeted at smaller countries and other lower-scale targets. The report is a retreat from decades of understanding that these destructive weapons were to be used as a deterrent only; as a last resort.

In September 2004 the Senate went along with a White House push to reduce the preparation time required for nuclear testing in Nevada; clearing the way for a resumption of nuclear test explosions which have been banned since 1992. It seeks to cut the time it would take to restart testing nuclear weapons in the Nevada desert from three years to two years. The Bush administration wants the period cut to 18 months.

Congress plans to build the first permanent U.S. nuclear waste repository in the desert northwest of Las Vegas, scheduled to open in 2010 and would hold up to 77,000 tons of radioactive waste.

The Energy bill that has emerged from the recent Congress would provide $580 million for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal project in 2004 — around $11 million less than Bush had requested but far above a $425 million limit earlier endorsed by the Senate.

The bill would also provide $11 million for a new factory to make plutonium "pits" for the next generation of nuclear weapons. The last U.S. facility for manufacturing nuclear triggers closed in 1989.

Citing "classified analyses" the DOE claims it needs to have a new pit facility capable of producing 125-500 pits per year. The DOE's Notice of Intent for the MPF also states that one of the functions for the facility will be to have the ability to produce new design pits for new types of nuclear weapons.

Most modern nuclear weapons depend on a plutonium pit as the "primary" that begins the chain reaction resulting in a thermonuclear explosion. A pit is a critical component of a nuclear weapon and functions as a trigger to allow a modern nuclear weapon to operate properly.

The Department of Energy announced on September 23, 2002, its intent to begin an examination of several possible sites for a Modern Pit Facility to produce plutonium pits for new and refurbished nuclear weapons.

The United States is the only nuclear power without the capability to manufacture a plutonium pit. About three-fourths of the U.S. surplus plutonium is relatively pure in the form of so-called pits, which have been removed (and deactivated) from existing warheads.

The remaining fourth of the surplus was in the process pipeline, mostly as plutonium residues, when processing was suddenly discontinued. The Soviet government processed all of its material to completion, so now all of the Russian surplus is in the form of pits or its weapon-form equivalent.

The Foster Panel Report, also known as the FY2000 Report to Congress of the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile, found that it could take 15 years from the point of developing a conceptual design for a pit facility until the final construction of the facility is completed.

The report stated that, "If it is determined through the science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program that one or more of our existing pit designs is no longer reliable, and therefore is not certifiable, our nuclear stockpile would, in effect, be unilaterally downsized below a level which could maintain a strong nuclear deterrence."

That is the hook which supporters of an expanded nuclear program will use to justify an abrogation of the treaty ban, and begin their new-generation arms race. If they don't get their way - to fiddle with and refurbish the existing nukes - they will argue that deterrence is at risk; a preposterous notion, as our existing arsenal is more than enough to blow us all to Pluto.

If new money is released, the nuclear weapons laboratories are expected to refurbish the casings on the existing nuclear B-61 and B-83 warheads, according to Energy Department nuclear czar and former UK Lockheed executive, Everett Beckner, in testimony before a Senate committee. Beckner claimed that both weapons have yields "substantially higher than five kilotons," so he has determined that the study will not violate a 1994 U.S. law prohibiting research on "low-yield" nuclear weapons.

A version of the B-61, modified to strike hardened and deeply buried targets, was added to the U.S. stockpile without nuclear testing in 1997. There is a serious question about the effectiveness of such a weapon on underground bunkers, and there is a concern that the neighboring effect of the radiation cloud would be devastating.

A nuclear strike on North Korea, for example, could generate deadly radioactive fallout, poisoning nearby countries such as Japan or Australia. Most observers do not believe that the new weapons can be developed without abandoning the non-proliferation treaty and sparking a new and frightening worldwide nuclear arms race.

The nuclear hawks are stepping out from behind their Trojan Horses of nuclear space travel and ‘safe', new nuclear fuels and are revealing a frightening ambition to yoke the nation to a new legacy of imperialism. President Bush has decided that America's image around the globe is to be one of an oppressive nuclear bully bent on world domination.

Mohamed El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (the man at the UN charged with managing U.S. demands against Iran's uranium enrichment) said in 2003 that developing new nuclear weapons could hamper efforts to reach agreement with other countries who might want to expand their nuclear programs; like Iran and Pakistan, for example.

In September 2004 the Senate went along with a White House push to reduce the preparation time required for nuclear testing in Nevada; clearing the way for a resumption of nuclear test explosions which have been banned since 1992. It seeks to cut the time it would take to restart testing nuclear weapons in the Nevada desert from three years to two years. The Bush administration wants the period cut to 18 months.

Congress plans to build the first permanent U.S. nuclear waste repository in the desert northwest of Las Vegas, scheduled to open in 2010 and would hold up to 77,000 tons of radioactive waste.

The Energy bill that has emerged from Congress would provide $580 million for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal project in 2004 — around $11 million less than Bush had requested but far above a $425 million limit earlier endorsed by the Senate.

The bill would also provide $11 million for a new factory to make plutonium "pits" for the next generation of nuclear weapons. The last U.S. facility for manufacturing nuclear triggers closed in 1989.

President Bush recently signed into law a Defense bill for 2004 which includes $9 billion in funding for research on the next generation of nuclear weaponry.

"It's an important signal we're sending," President Bush remarked at the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, "because, you see, the war on terror is different than any war America has ever fought."

"Our enemies seek to inflict mass casualties, without fielding mass armies," he cautioned. "They hide in the shadows, and they're often hard to strike. The terrorists are cunning and ruthless and dangerous, as the world saw on September the 11th, 2001. Yet these killers are now facing the United States of America, and a great coalition of responsible nations, and this threat to civilization will be defeated."

This is a posture usually reserved for nation-states who initiate or sponsor terrorists. The devastating neighboring effect of a potential nuclear engagement would contaminate innocent millions with the resulting radioactive fallout, and would not deter individuals with no known base of operations.

Yet, this administration, for the first time in our nation’s history, contemplates using nuclear weapons on countries which themselves have no nuclear capability, or pose no nuclear threat.

In September 2000, the PNAC drafted a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century."

The conservative foundation- funded report was authored by Bill Kristol, Bruce Jackson, Gary Schmitt, John Bolton and others. Bolton, now Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, was Senior Vice President of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. The report called for: ". . . significant, separate allocation of forces and budgetary resources over the next two decades for missile defense," and claimed that despite the "residue of investments first made in the mid- and late 1980s, over the past decade, the pace of innovation within the Pentagon had slowed measurably." Also that, "without the driving challenge of the Soviet military threat, efforts at innovation had lacked urgency."

The PNAC report asserted that "while long-range precision strikes will certainly play an increasingly large role in U.S. military operations, American forces must remain deployed abroad, in large numbers for decades and that U.S. forces will continue to operate many, if not most, of today's weapons systems for a decade or more." The PNAC document encouraged the military to "develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world."

The paper claimed that, "Potential rivals such as China were anxious to exploit these technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea were rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they sought to dominate. Also that, information and other new technologies – as well as widespread technological and weapons proliferation – were creating a ‘dynamic' that might threaten America's ability to exercise its ‘dominant' military power."

In reference to the nation's nuclear forces, the PNAC document asserted that, " reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself."

"The (Clinton) administration's stewardship of the nation's deterrent capability has been described by Congress as "erosion by design," the group chided.

The authors further warned that, "U.S. nuclear force planning and related arms control policies must take account of a larger set of variables than in the past, including the growing number of small nuclear arsenals –from North Korea to Pakistan to, perhaps soon, Iran and Iraq – and a modernized and expanded Chinese nuclear force." In addition, they counseled, "there may be a need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements, such as would be required in targeting the very deep underground, hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries."

The PNAC ‘Rebuilding America' report was used after the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks to draft the 2002 document entitled "The National Security Strategy of the United States," which for the first time in the nation's history advocated "preemptive" attacks to prevent the emergence of opponents the administration considered a threat to its political and economic interests.

It states that ". . . we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country." And that, "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."

This military industry band of executives promoted the view, in and outside of the White House that, " must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. . . We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed."

Their strategy asserts that "The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction - and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack."

The 2002 PNAC document is a mirrored synopsis of the Bush administration's foreign policy today. President Bush is projecting a domineering image of the United States around the world which has provoked lesser equipped countries to desperate, unconventional defenses; or resigned them to a humiliating surrender to our rape of their lands, their resources and their communities.


President Bush intends for there to be more conquest - like in Iraq - as the United States exercises its military force around the world; our mandate, our justification, presumably inherent in the mere possession of our instruments of destruction.

We are unleashing a new, unnecessary fear between the nations of the world as we dissolve decades of firm understandings about an America power which was to be guileless in its unassailable defenses. The falseness of our diplomacy is revealed in our scramble for ‘useable', tactical nuclear missiles, new weapons systems, and our new justifications for their use.

Our folly is evident in the rejection of our ambitions by even the closest of our allies, as we reject all entreaties to moderate our manufactured mandate to conquer. Isolation is enveloping our nation like the warming of the atmosphere and the creeping melt of our planet's ancient glaciers.

Who will stand up against this new generation of nuclear madness? If we stand firm there is no limit to what we can achieve. If we refuse to stand up against this administration's push for new nukes, if we are indifferent, if we shrink away and accept their weak excuses and justifications we will undo a generation of resistance and activism.

This is our chance to make a difference. This is our moment to rise up against another mindless escalation into a new nuclear arms race. Are we ready?

[Armstead]

1. "Mein Fuhrer -- I Can Walk!"

[bigtree]

5. "There's nothing you can do about this thing now!"

http://www.indelibleinc.com/kubrick/films/strangelove/audio/NOTHING.WAV

[SteppingRazor]

2. Great post! I would point out, though...

That most of Bush's cronies are from the very same generation that "fought a valiant battle against nuclear weapons" as you put it. It's not as though Generation X is making the rules yet. The people who are supporting the development of more nuclear weapons are the very same people who spent their childhoods living in fear of the Bomb.

[bigtree]

3. you know, you're right

dinosaurs

[bigtree]

4. linked final

April 6, 2006

Strange How This Generation Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

by Ron Fullwood

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_060406_strange_how_this_gen.htm

[bigtree]

6. Russia Abandons Policy Of Maintaing Military Parity With US Moscow

(AFP) Apr 04, 2006

The Russian armed forces chief of staff said Monday that Russia had given up on military parity with the United States but would retain "sufficient deterrent force" to guarantee its safety.

"We won't be pulling in our belts to have parity with the United States or with NATO. That is just not realistic," General Yuri Baluyevsky said at a press conference in Moscow to launch a new report on the Russia's armed forces.

"NATO has four million men in its armed forces. The Russian army is made up of 1,134,000 soldiers. It's clear enough," he added.

"We have no intention of going to war with NATO. That is in the past, although Russia will still maintain enough of a deterrent to ensure anyone thinking about invading its borders and seizing its rich natural resources will think again."

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_Abandons_Policy_Of_Maintaing_Military_Parity_With_US.html

[bigtree]

7. Nuclear warhead update developed

April 7, 2006

The Bush administration is designing a new nuclear warhead that will replace aging stockpiles of weapons and counter emerging threats, according to Energy Department officials.

The Reliable Replacement Warhead is being drawn up at two Energy Department nuclear weapons laboratories and, if produced, would be the first new strategic warhead in more than a decade.

The warhead has been described by U.S. officials as having a "modular" design that will allow it to be adapted to various delivery systems, including missiles, bombers or submarines.

"These replacement warheads have the same military characteristics, are carried on the same types of delivery systems and hold at risk the same targets as the warheads they replaced, but they have been redesigned for reliability, security and ease of maintenance,"

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060406-112126-3779r.htm

[bigtree]

8. Bomb test in Nevada will simulate nuclear strike, critics warn

Salt Lake Tribune

Last update: April 06, 2006

WASHINGTON — A powerful blast scheduled at the Nevada Test Site in June is designed to help war planners figure out the smallest nuclear weapon able to destroy underground targets. And it has caused a concern that it signals a renewed push toward tactical nuclear weapons.

The detonation, called Divine Strake, is intended to "develop a planning tool to improve the warfighter's confidence in selecting the smallest proper nuclear yield necessary to destroy underground facilities while minimizing collateral damage," according to Defense Department budget documents.

Irene Smith, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency, said the document doesn't imply that Divine Strake "is a nuclear simulation." She said it would be used to assess computer programs that predict ground shaking in a major blast.

http://www.startribune.com/484/story/356294.html

[bigtree]

9. Nuke redevelopment plan a boon for Livermore Lab

The Bush administration's presentation Wednesday of a blueprint for a new, redesigned nuclear arsenal and a smaller, more modern nuclear weapons complex caps more than a year of talks with federal lawmakers and the weapons sites they represent.

Along the way, a key California congresswoman dropped her objections to taking weapons plutonium out of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. U.S. Rep. Ellen Tauscher also eased her skepticism about the design of new, age-resistant H-bombs called "reliable replacement warheads," or RRW, in the hope that they lead to a smaller nuclear arsenal and a global ban on nuclear testing.

"Like everything else, RRW on the face of it sounds very promising," Tauscher, D-Alamo, said Thursday.

The deal surprised critics of security at the nation's weapons complex. For years, they pointed to Livermore in particular as a huge risk for a terrorist attack — a lab storing enough plutonium and uranium to make dozens of atom bombs within 50 miles of three major cities and 7 million people.

Yet because the lab was surrounded by suburban homes and apartments, its security forces until recently were not armed with machine guns, much less the grenade launchers and truck bombs that terrorists were deemed likely to bring.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_3683813


"Orwellian nonsense. Building more weapons will mean less weapons in the future, and an end to such weapons, according to twits like Tauscher.

[bigtree]

10. Editorial: Worrisome plan for new nukes

Congress must explore issue thoroughly

April 7, 2006

With the unveiling of its sweeping plan to rebuild and modernize the nation's aging nuclear weapons arsenal, the Bush administration is raising serious and disturbing questions that must be explored and answered fully before Congress even considers giving the go-ahead.

The plan, presented to Congress earlier this week, would lead to the most comprehensive reorganization of the nation's complex of factories and laboratories dedicated to nuclear weapons design and production since the end of the Cold War. For the first time since 1989, it would restore the nation's capacity to make new bombs. And it would create a facility with the capability to produce 125 new weapons a year to replace the obsolete or unreliable bombs that the Pentagon would retire and destroy.

Replacing aging weapons makes sense, but the overall arsenal must not be increased - either in numbers or the lethality of individual bombs. The administration should be aware that restarting weapons production may send a signal to other nations, and it must make it clear that it's not backing away from efforts to reduce the global nuclear threat. The plan, at worst, could give a reason to presumptive nuclear powers such as Iran to develop or speed up their own weapons programs.

Already there is an uneasy dissonance between Bush's plan and his injunctions against nuclear proliferation abroad. This proposal to modernize the nuclear arsenal must be reviewed thoroughly to ensure that it does not go beyond the minimum level necessary to maintain the nation's deterrence capability. If anything, the overall goal should be to continue to reduce the nation's fearsome nuclear array, which is absurdly redundant as it exists today.

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpnuk074692452apr07,0,4554138.story?coll=ny-editorials-headlines

[YOUTHTHINK]

11. definitely kicked

this is too important to let sit in the archives, especially with all of the other silly posts getting so much chatter

edit: damn! not enough posts to recommend for greatest page. recommended anyway.

[bigtree]

12. I love you anyway YOUTHTHINK

:D

[bigtree]

13. weekend kick

:kick: