BUSH ADMIN Readying Nuke Warheads

[kpete]

U.S. Selecting Hybrid Design for Warheads

By WILLIAM J. BROAD, DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER
Published: January 7, 2007


WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 — The Bush administration is expected to announce next week a major step forward in the building of the country’s first new nuclear warhead in nearly two decades. It will propose combining elements of competing designs from two weapons laboratories in an approach that some experts argue is untested and risky.

The new weapon would not add to but replace the nation’s existing arsenal of aging warheads, with a new generation meant to be sturdier, more reliable, safer from accidental detonation and more secure from theft by terrorists.

The announcement, to be made by the interagency Nuclear Weapons Council, avoids making a choice between the two designs for a new weapon, called the Reliable Replacement Warhead, which at first would be mounted on submarine-launched missiles.

The effort, if approved by President Bush and financed by Congress, would require a huge refurbishment of the nation’s complex for nuclear design and manufacturing, with the overall bill estimated at more than $100 billion.

more at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/washington/07nuke.htmland there is also this story today:



and there is also this story today:

The Sunday Times January 07, 2007
Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

more at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html

[indepat]

1. And was it $2 billion the Manhattan Project cost?

[bridgit]

2. it's too late to stop R&D...

it's been going on since "the rockets red glare" x(

[NMDemDist2]

3. shouldn't we buy some new HumVees first to replace what we've lost?

just saying... :shrug:

these idiots must think $$$ grows on trees and that Global Warming will lengthen the growing season

:banghead:

[babylonsister]

4. From the article:

If Mr. Bush decides to deploy the new design, he could touch off a debate in a Democrat-controlled Congress and among allies and adversaries abroad, who have opposed efforts to modernize the arsenal in the past. While proponents of the new weapon said that it would replace older weapons that could deteriorate over time, and reduce the chances of a detonation if weapons fell into the wrong hands, critics have long argued that this is the wrong moment for Washington to produce a new nuclear warhead of any kind.

At a time when the administration is trying to convince the world to put sanctions on North Korea and Iran to halt their nuclear programs, those critics argue, any move to improve the American arsenal will be seen as hypocritical, an effort by the United States to extend its nuclear lead over other countries. Should the United States decide to conduct a test, officials said, China and Russia — which have their own nuclear modernization programs under way — would feel free to do the same. North Korea was sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council for conducting its first test on Oct. 9, and it may be preparing for more, experts said.



I hope Congress has their votes in the 'no funding' category.

[Tellurian]

6. Yes, we have to stall the maniacal uncle in the attic for as long as possible...

our lives depend on it..

[madeline_con]

5. ".... more secure from theft by terrorists."

Which begs the question, why not secure the ones we already have? Is this a silly question? :wtf:

[partylessinOhio]

7. NO!

No more weapons. No more WAR!

If we have them, someone (Neocon) will use them.

[PA Democrat]

8. Anyone have any ideas as to what THIS means:

"It will propose combining elements of competing designs from two weapons laboratories in an approach that some experts argue is untested and risky."

Risky in what way? That it won't work and will be a complete waste of money, or that it is somehow more dangerous than a typical nuke?

[babylonsister]

15. Good 'wow' point. I'm so sick of the wars, weapons, and the people

who love, desire, or think we need both. I know it's a scary world, but we haven't done a damn thing to try to make it better.

[ck4829]

9. If we're concerned about terrorists stealing nukes

Then why are we building them in the first place?

[WiseButAngrySara]

10. Oh please Dear God, can I wake up yet from this insanity? ...n/t

[blogslut]

11. sigh

I have a good guess where the weapons will be assembled.

Here's a lil nuke weapon primer for DU:

A complete nuclear weapon is the product of many facilities. One facility produces the radioactive material. Another will build the bomb casing. Yet another will manufacture the triggers. All the separate parts are then sent to a final facility, where they are assembled into a weapon. That facility is located in the High Plains of Texas.

For more information, please visit:

http://peacefarm.us

[durtee librul]

12. And let me guess

KBR and Halliburton are involved along with a host of others to numerous to name - war profiteering......crooks, liars, KILLERS.....

[blogslut]

13. Actually, Bechtel

:)

[MadMaddie]

14. And again no surprise...

[OneBlueSky]

16. will the SANE world leaders please come together and talk some sense . . .

to BushCo and the Israelis? . . . PLEASE!!! . . .

these self-absorbed Neanderthals seem to believe that nuclear weapons are just one more toy in their arsenal . . . and what good is a marvelous toy if you can't take it out and use it once in awhile? . . .

the ONLY thing that these people should be doing about nukes is working to ban them -- or at least reduce their number and their spread dramatically . . .

if nucear war (strategic OR tactical) is released from it's cozy little home in Pandora's box, the consequences will be dire, and there will be no turning back . . . in addition to thousands upon thousands of deaths (of humans and other species), our already devastating environmental crises will compound geometrically, likely to the point of mass extinctions and large areas of the planet becoming uninhabitable by man, beast, or even plants . . . for a VERY, VERY long time . . .

this is NOT something that we can ignore, either blissfully or fearfully, and hope that it goes away . . . both the U.S. and Israel seem determined to use tactical nukes on Iran in the not-to-distant future, and they MUST be stopped . . . the UN needs to speak out, heads of state need to speak out, scholars and celebrities and ordinary people need to speak out . . . LOUDLY, convincingly, and repeatedly . . .

these people need to be told, in no uncertain terms, that "NO! You can NOT do that! You are putting the entire planet at unimaginably great risk, and we will not stand by and watch that happen! You MUST renounce the use of nuclear weapons, and work to make diplomacy, not war, the primary vehicle for resolving international disputes." . . .

[baldguy]

17. He can't be impeached for letting 9/11 happen.

He can't be impeached for lying to start a war.

Can he be impeached FOR JUST BEING PLAIN FUCKING INSANE?!?!