Bush wants to lift ban on tatical nukes

The Bush administration has formally proposed lifting a decade-long ban on the development of small, low-yield nuclear weapons, a move that arms control advocates predicted could touch off a new global arms race.

The proposal to allow development of so-called “mini-nukes” is contained in a draft of the 2004 Defence Authorisation bill that the Pentagon sent to Congress this week. The weapons would have an explosive yield of less than 5 kilotonnes - about one-third the size of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 and far smaller than most current nuclear weapons. Some policy-makers and military planners have suggested that such weapons could be used to eliminate nuclear, chemical or biological weapons that may be produced by nations such as Iraq, North Korea or Iran.

Continued....

[Redwolf]

Not going to happen. Not only is there a lobby against it, but tactical nukes are also nearly worthless in terms of military value. For more info, see:

www.fas.org
(it's one of the main articles)

[willy_ph]

If this succeeds it may very well be the most dangerous decision that Bush makes in office. It will not only re-ignite the arms race, but will provide the impetus for a number of countries to initiate nuclear weapons development programs.

Bush continually argues that it is the safety and security of the American people that is important, while stressing the importance of stability in a number of regions of the world. This action will accomplish neither goal. It will place the American people in a far more dangerous world, while undermining the security and stability of a number of regions. Particularily the Middle-East and Asia.

It is unfortunate that the Bush regime feels that it must pursue weapons that have been highly useless since the collapse of the Leninist bloc and serve no defensive purpose. As Redwolf also noted, they have virtually no useful military application. These potential decisions are akin those that belong to a tyrannical dictator or authoritarian regime, not those that should come from the self-professed leaders in the democratic tradition.

[Mike]

All I have to say is that I am not surprised he wants to do this.

[Knothead]

This is ludicrous...

Every so often, i start to respect GWB, and then I'll read some dang thing he said, or wants to do, and...good grief....I guess this guy is the best we can get, huh?

[xenon200]

He's an idiot - plain and simple. He has some excellent people in his administration, and while I do hold respect for the position - watching him on TV with his little mannerisms and facial expressions makes me sick.

Oh well... Nothing I can do about it. Let the self destruction begin, I guess...

~x2

[cyphen]

Do i have to say this to everybody? Please do not disrespect or call the President of the Untied States names. It makes the entire country look bad. I disagree with this action as well. I'm not sure what the aim was. Perhaps the aim was to send a message to North Korea. I don't know. At any rate. it certainly won't pass.

But don't call our president an idiot - that just shows you for what you are. You don't at all hold respect for his position if you disrespect the person in the position while he is performing the duties of that position. The presidency and the man who is president are one and the same. To disrespect one is to disrespect the other.

As far as watching him on TV and his mannerisms making you sick - i would suggest changing the channel, taking some dramamine, reading a book, or any of a thousand other things to keep you from bi****ing.

Oh wait. You're from British Columbia. Do whatever the hell you want.

Very poor thinking even for Bush. This will spark an arms race and 10 years from now the same people who advocated this will complain that other countries have tactical nukes as well.

But wait.

Its OK for the US to have these but not anyone else.

And I agree - no sense disrespecting the President. Whatever he may be he is still the President. Such remarks just reflect on the person who makes them.

He has some errr....limitations, but then who doesn't?

But this has got to be the most ludicrious decision the Administration will make.

No wait.

The war takes the mantle.

This is just another in a series of hawkish positions the administration is taking to draw public attention from other pressing domestic matters like the economy, healthcare, inflationary pressures, and the huge and rapidly growing budget deficit.

If only GWB focus on domestic matters and addresses these issues instead of plunging the entire world into a catastrophic situation, he'd probably win the 2004.

As it stands, no matter what the outcome of the war, he doesn't stand a chance because the aftermath of the war will be so intense that even his ardent supporters will wonder why he declared war in the first place.

[cyphen]

i think you're a little off the mark, shah. there are many who think that if he doesn't take care of foreign matters - and ignores them like the isolationist left, then someday there won't be any domestic matters to attend to at all.

Had europe the foresight to forcibly disarm germany, WWII wouldn't have been fought on Hitler's terms, and millions upon millions of lives would have been saved - including 6 million Jews spared the holocost.

Again, I don't know exactly who made this argument - it seems to me that it stemmed from the pentagon, but we'll see. It could be rumor - it seems a little "off" ...

[Chuckiechan]

I don't know that this is new.

The purpose is to notify Saddam that we have ways to do bad things to him even if he is hiding. Don't do Bio, don't do gas, don't do nuke. (N. Korea, are you listening?)

This is part of the psychological game, read your posts! Some of you are freaking out more than Saddam is!

They ain't going to be used...