Bush pushes "Mini-Nuke" Development

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-05-21 04:54pm

The Senate votes to repeal a 10-year prohibition on the research of so-called "mini-nuke" weapons. The Bush administration says low-yield warheads can be used to destroy biological or chemical weapons facilities, but Democrats argue that ending the ban could spark a new arms race and heighten risks of nuclear warfare. Hear NPR's Tom Gjelten May 21, 2003

--http://news.npr.org/us.html

I heard about this on the radio this morning. Haven't seen anything about it on Yahoo News.

Does this seem like a bad idea to anyone besides me?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-21 05:03pm

I suppose you'd prefer the 9 megaton alternative? I favor the development of all new tactical nuclear devices and if necessary a resumption of nuclear testing to ensuring the US's aging strategic warheads still work.

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-05-21 05:06pm

Yeah, right. Let's develop more small, concealable, portable nuclear devices.

The US is supposedly against nuclear proliferation, right? Do as we say, not as we do.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-05-21 05:18pm

The current behaviour of the USA tends to encourage countries to develop nuclear weapons, not the other way round...
This is just another "logical" step for them to make...

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-05-21 05:29pm

Its illogical and hypocritical, but its ultimately the smart thing to do. The US simply needs nukes. Thats how it is.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-05-21 05:36pm

Howedar wrote:Its illogical and hypocritical, but its ultimately the smart thing to do. The US simply needs nukes. Thats how it is.

Then you should have no problem with other nations making them.

chachacha

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-05-21 06:22pm

Hamel wrote:Then you should have no problem with other nations making them.

Sure, as long as the nations aren't controlled by dangerous, sadistic, egomaniac dictators. Or aren't controlled by a theocracy that possesses a strong vow to destroy everything American.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-21 06:32pm

too bad that is who is charge of the US, fundamentalist christian nutters who want nothign more than to be a totalitarian regime

The Albino Raven · Post by **The Albino Raven** » 2003-05-21 06:46pm

If America can have nuclear weapons, then it can't stop other people from having them. Attempting to do so is one of the reasons so many people are pissed at America. We keep handing down hypocritical judgements to rest of the world, and are resented for it. Besides, these so called "mini-nukes" are not going to be demonized like the originals were, meaning that we are going to be dropping nuclear weaopns. Small or not, the places we bomb are going to be fucked in the long term. If, instead of dropping one big bomb, we drop 500 little ones, the result will be worse.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-05-21 06:59pm

Well techincally, they can develop all the bombs they want, because they're "new-kew-lar" bombs, not the "new-clee-ar" bombs specified by all related treaties.

Regardless of whether it is essential or not, it's going to make the rest of the world mad at America (again).

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-05-21 07:53pm

Small or not, the places we bomb are going to be fucked in the long term

A five-kiloton airburst will have almost no fallout and is best used for destroying bunkers and such.

I support this fully. I see no hypocrisy- when America is ruled by a bloodthirsty theocratic dictatorship, then you can call it hypocrisy.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-05-21 08:00pm

To my knowledge, the US has never tried to take nukes away from a nuclear power, only keep more nations from going nuclear.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-21 09:15pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
A five-kiloton airburst will have almost no fallout and is best used for destroying bunkers and such.

No actually the intent to developed additional earth penatraitors. Fallout is heavy but highly localized with such burst because the blast doesn’t reach up into the stratosphere or anywhere close too it. Still a modern 99%+ efficient nuclear blast with low yield would have a puny amount of fallout no matter what. The amount of bomb material left over to make long term fallout is just too small.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-05-21 09:58pm

NapoleonGH wrote:too bad that is who is charge of the US, fundamentalist christian nutters who want nothign more than to be a totalitarian regime

Too bad they aren't. We are nowhere near a totalitarian regieme. Or did you conveniently ignore the fact that sometimes the US swings towards the authoritarian side? Things like the PATRIOT Act should be opposed, of course, but running around with your head chopped off is nonsense.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2003-05-21 10:13pm

NapoleonGH wrote:too bad that is who is charge of the US, fundamentalist christian nutters who want nothign more than to be a totalitarian regime

Quiet you! Spies are everywhere...

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-05-21 10:42pm

Didn't the US sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

If so, that would make this development illegal.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-21 10:49pm

Ted wrote:Didn't the US sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

If so, that would make this development illegal.

The non-proliferation treaty controls the export of nuclear weapons technology to other nations. It does not limit the five nations which already had them, USA, UK, France, USSR/Russia, China from developing it for there own uses. Notice that vast steps all those nations have taken to improve their nuclear forces, including the construction of many all-new warheads since 1970, when the treaty came into effect.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-05-21 10:52pm

Ted wrote:Didn't the US sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

If so, that would make this development illegal.

I want Ted to teach me how to kneejerk.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-05-21 10:52pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:The non-proliferation treaty controls the export of nuclear weapons technology to other nations. It does not limit the five nations which already had them, USA, UK, France, USSR/Russia, China from developing it for there own uses. Notice that vast steps all those nations have taken to improve their nuclear forces, including the construction of many all-new warheads since 1970, when the treaty came into effect.

That was the original treaty, but didn't later ones actually ban the development of ALL nukes?

Such as the US could not build any new ones or develop new ones.

Thats what my politics teacher said, I'll have to clarify it tommorrow though.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-21 10:56pm

Ted wrote:
That was the original treaty, but didn't later ones actually ban the development of ALL nukes?

Such as the US could not build any new ones or develop new ones.

Thats what my politics teacher said, I'll have to clarify it tommorrow though.

I'm not aware of any such provision. Sure its not confusion with the various limited and comprehensive test ban treaties?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-05-22 11:05am

It's probably related to one of the CBTs, but I'm hardly suprised that the US would ditch a test-ban treaty again. We've done it historically; we typically use it for some short-term advantage until we need to test a new design.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-05-22 03:12pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:I'm not aware of any such provision. Sure its not confusion with the various limited and comprehensive test ban treaties?

Possibly, stupid politics teacher missing class. That class we were basically taught the major treaty's during the Cold War, so I probably got it mixed up.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-22 03:56pm

Ted wrote: Possibly, stupid politics teacher missing class. That class we were basically taught the major treaty's during the Cold War, so I probably got it mixed up.

Probably. The US would ever sign such a thing, and the odds of the US congress ratifying it would be equally nil.

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-05-22 05:23pm

All I can say is that the Russians beat the US this time. They had 50 suitcase nukes in this country before the end of the Cold War, but they weren't really powerful.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-22 05:26pm

Admiral Johnason wrote:All I can say is that the Russians beat the US this time. They had 50 suitcase nukes in this country before the end of the Cold War, but they weren't really powerful.

Got any proof of that bit of bull?