US nuclear warhead plan under fire (The Guardian)

[Up2Late]

US nuclear warhead plan under fire

Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday April 9, 2005
The Guardian

Democrats and American arms control groups warned yesterday that a new Bush administration scheme to replace ageing nuclear warheads could be used as a cover for the eventual construction of a "black arsenal" of new weapons. The plan, known as the reliable replacement warhead programme (RRW), was unveiled this week by Linton Brooks, the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Instead of maintaining the old stockpile by monitoring the warheads and replacing occasional spare parts, RRW would entail the design, production and deployment of a new generation of warheads. These would not require testing, and therefore would not break the US moratorium on nuclear tests.

Mr Brooks said the new warheads would be used in existing cold war era weapons. The construction of a warhead production facility would also maintain the expertise and infrastructure for the US to respond flexibly to new threats. "We need to maintain the capability to respond to potential future requirements," he said.

Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, a California Democrat and one of the party's leading voices on military issues, alleged that the administration was using the scheme as a cover for developing a range of "smaller and more usable" weapons which were blocked last year by Congress. "This administration doesn't take no for an answer," Ms Tauscher told The Guardian. "But every time we erect a fence they jump it." Congress blocked development funds for the proposed robust nuclear earth penetrator, a "bunker-buster" for destroying enemy stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction or underground command posts. The legislature also stopped the advanced concepts initiative, a broad-ranging research programme for developing a new generation of weapons.

(more at link above)

[RC]

1. Let's figure out a way to get those paranoid misfits out of power

and into prison where they belong. Then we won't have to worry about this nuclear arsenal shit. And maybe our grandkids can be allow to grow to adulthood.

The biggest threat to world peace is our own government.

[Up2Late]

2. I couldn't agree with you more...

...and I think most of the rest of the world does too.

[teryang]

3. lowering the threshold for nuclear war

<Opponents said both projects would undermine global counter-proliferation efforts and could eventually tempt policymakers to use a new generation of smaller weapons in a crisis.>

Tempted? They are planning on it. A well led and organized enemy that digs in is generally immune from the effects of bombardment as a military tactic. For inland Asian targets this means engagement in costly land campaigns that will attrite American forces successfully. Full spectrum dominance ends below actual ground level.

<"It is not compatible with US and other efforts to counter proliferation and it sends the wrong message around the world." >

Exactly right.

< "Establishing a responsive nuclear infrastructure will provide opportunities for additional stockpile reductions because we can rely less on the stockpile and more on infrastructure," Mr Brooks said.>

This is complete non-sense. Nuclear weapons are needed instantly for an emergency situation at hand. The infra-structure is irrelevant in such a situation. This is what arms races are all about. The purpose of tactical mini-nukes is to disguise the nature of the nuclear warfare that you are about to conduct by representing it as conventional and trying to overwhelm and underbid the enemy at the same time. The fact that the infrastructure is regarded as sustainable in such a situation apart from being somewhat delusional, is the desire to keep a production line going in the event of "need" as if such a conflict in which such weapons were used would be indefinitely sustainable.

[Up2Late]

4. Kick n/t

:kick: