US Senate lifts ban on "mini-nukes"

[Lefty Scaevola]

Bull, virtually none of the scientific community has even given the question the slightest though. With the prior ban on funding reasearch, non has had any reason outside politics to do so. Note in one of the article cited above military weapons experts and talking burrowing nuke bunker busters.

[Lorizael]

Actually, they have thought about it. There's a rather large article in Scientific American that shows just how poorly such a thing would work.

[Whaleboy]

This has GOT to stop! You build small nukes, of comparable power to hiroshima (1/3 I think you said), then you have less inclination not to use them.

It gave me great hope that we had a weapon that hadnt been used in anger for 58 years, now I fear that this time may be coming to an end.

I emplore Americans to see through this fallacious cloak of patriotism that Bush & Co. use to justify everything they, and see that they are acting against the grand principles for which America has traditionally stood.

Such things as battlefield "pragmatic" nukes, are going way, way too far. Terrorist threats are dealt with best by a proactively benign foreign policy, good intelligence, and good homeland security. It is not done by the "all guns blazing" approach, or actively twisting the arm of other governments.

Of course that doesnt win votes, I just hope that people are intelligent enough to be the reciprocal of that, and vote for the acts that are the wisest, instead of merely being wrapped in the US flag.

[Jac de Molay]

The majority of the scientific community thinks that using "mini nukes" to open up bunkers is very, very sill

Personally, I think the Administration wants to have its cake and eat it too- Condemn those whose develop WMD's on their terms, but then pave the way for sneaky nukes.

A "bunker busting" small nuke would still kick up a sh*tload of radioactive soil and all sorts of fun stuff for the nearby populace.

[Whaleboy]

What right does anyone have to hold nuclear warheads?

Two nations have nukes, both wants the other not to have them. Two subjectives, no view is more objective than the other. The difference is that one nation has more of these weapons, and others, so it can force its will.

Not good really is it?

[Cruddy]

I could be wrong on this, but I'm fairly certain the UK govt started a similar programme some time ago.

WHY? I can only presume they think that using a small nuclear weapon will not receive a much bigger retaliation. Not immedietely, not the same year - and most importantly, not when they are in office.

[Whaleboy]

*Another quote from my fortune cookie program*

I view weapons as in index of the lack of development of a culture.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Actually, they have thought about it. There's a rather large article in Scientific American that shows just how poorly such a thing would work.

And the authors of one said article, not based on actually research on the subject (since there has not been any), but on brainstorming speculation, constitute the majority of a scientific community of of many millions?

Locating your so called article at Scientific american shows that it is nothing but a 2 paragraph new capsule reffering to an upcomming paper by one researcher who opines, with no data cited, that they would not be worth it.

[GePap]

I find this new sort of weapon absurd. Experience shows our intelliegnce aganecies could hardly find locations making bioweapons, sepcially deep undergound bunkers (just look at our great intel vis a vi Iraq, India and Pak., so forth.

Our regular bunker busters do the work well enough. I wonder, next time the NPT comes up for renewal, should the world renue it? porpably not, if the US is trying to develop new types of nukes, instead of moving towards the pormised disarmement (a failure we share with the other nuclear powers).

[Sava]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
The Dems won't have to. Bushie is self destructing. Largest deficit in the history of humanity. Economy sputtering along like a Model-T with a flat tire. 48 States with budget deficits. Millions of jobs lost. And all Bush can thing about is how to give more tax cuts to his rich friends.

[Phil Hartman doing Ed McMahon]
YES
[/Phil Hartman doing Ed McMahon]

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


The Dems won't have to. Bushie is self destructing. Largest deficit in the history of humanity. Economy sputtering along like a Model-T with a flat tire. 48 States with budget deficits. Millions of jobs lost. And all Bush can thing about is how to give more tax cuts to his rich friends.

please. who are the dems going to throw up? sharpton? leiberjew? eyebrows?

whatever. a NYT poll just said 57% of americans believe bush above ANY DEMOCRAT in 2004. and the term "ANY DEMOCRAT" is misleading, because once you meet the democrat, your mind will change. probably.

i personally see them putting up leiberjew as a sacrifice.

"Leiberman, the candidate for those who want to vote Bush, but don't think he's Jewish enough"
-Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

[Jac de Molay]

Wait to see if the economy is still taking a dump a year from now, and we can start talking about polls.

[Japher]

Ah, this mini-nuke thing is just Bush lashing out at BMW for the cooper.

[Shi Huangdi]

to Bush and Rumsfeld for finding new and innovative ways to keep America safe!

[Inverse Icarus]

it just occured to me that this is mainly for korea.

no half victory this time!