The re-nuking of Amerika. It is happening. But what if this kind of funding
was used to protect and conserve natural resources, and the environment? I
see two large problems with the nukes. Re-nuking encourages other nations
like Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran to fully develop their own nukes.
Russia will follow suit to develop more, and so on. The other problem is
that even if the nukes are never used there is the waste problem, and the
cost. That cost could be better deployed with 'taxpayers' savings in
protecting and conserving natural resources. The real war is actually
'staying competitive' and China is far and away more competitive than the US
in supplying market based goods, as is India in supplying market based
services [everything from tax returns to call in centers].

> http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2004/2004-06-17-09.asp
>
> New Nukes Win Senate Support
>
> WASHINGTON, DC, June 17, 2004 (ENS) - Senate Democrats failed in a bid
> Tuesday to strip funding from the 2005 Defense Authorization Act defense
> spending bill for research of new nuclear weapons. An amendment to remove
> the $33.6 million earmarked for studies of low-yield and "bunker buster"
> nuclear weapons was defeated by a partisan vote of 55 to 42.
>
> The funds come on the heels of a decision by Congress last year to lift a
> decade old ban on researching new low yield nuclear weapons. These five
> kiloton nuclear weapons are about half the size of the bomb dropped on
> Hiroshima in 1945.
>
> Congress has also approved a Bush administration request to shorten the
time
> required to prepare for a full-scale nuclear test from 24 months to 18
> months.
>
> The Bush administration says research into these new nuclear weapons will
> make the nation's nuclear arsenal into a more effective deterrent. The
> administration argues that these kinds of weapons could reduce the
potential
> for causing civilian casualties and could improve the effectiveness of
> nuclear weapons in destroying deeply buried and hardened targets.
>
> Republicans stressed that the funding is only for research. The
> administration would have to ask Congress for authority to develop the new
> nukes.
>
> "It is not realistic to think we can put the nuclear genie back into the
> bottle," said Senator Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican. "We cannot
> hope that if we ignore the evolving nuclear threat that it will go away."
>
> But critics are concerned that the Bush administration's plan blurs the
line
> between the use of nuclear and conventional weapons and could undermine
the
> international effort to contain the world's development of nuclear
weapons.
>
> "I strongly believe that to proceed on this path is folly because by doing
> so we are encouraging the very nuclear proliferation we are seeking to
> prevent," said California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, a coauthor of the
> amendment. "In other words, we are telling other countries, do not do what
> we do, do what we say. We are practicing the ultimate hypocrisy."
>
> Critics say the administration's concept of modifying or developing
nuclear
> weapons for use against deeply buried and hardened targets is not only
> misguided, but fundamentally flawed.
>
> A nuclear weapon exploded just beneath the Earth's surface would create a
> massive crater and would throw more radioactive dirt and particles into
the
> air than one detonated above the target, according to Sidney Drell, a
> nuclear physicist with Stanford University.
>
> For fallout to be contained, even a 0.5 kiloton nuclear weapon would have
to
> penetrate at least 150 feet into the Earth in order for fallout to be
> contained.
>
> But there is no known material that could be used to encase a bomb that
> could penetrate more than 50 feet, Drell said, "even if we slam them in at
> supersonic speeds."
>
> All 42 votes in favor of the amendment were cast by Democrats, but four
> Democrats crossed party lines to vote with the Senate's 51 Republicans to
> defeat the measure.
>
>