Bush OKs New Nuke

[Loonman]

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/11763.htm

[Whoa_Nelly]

1. * the Trendsetter

But defense officials said they're seeing a trend toward deeper and harder bunkers being built by enemy forces, as well as caves.

So, naturally * has to follow the trend and build nukes as his statement in counterpoint...never could think for himself.

[Paschall]

8. What trend?

None of the multi-story bunker/hotel/gym complexes they said dotted Tora Bora were ever found.

[Whoa_Nelly]

9. Was referring to the snip from the article

And being sarcastic O8)

[PaDUer]

17. Is this the one..

that's been on the cartoon page that he was riding??

[Media_Lies_Daily]

2. Just how "small-scale" can a nuke be, particularly a ground-burst nuke?...

Any nuclear weapon exploding at or near ground level will pull radioactive particles (fallout) into the atmosphere where they will disperse downwind. Depending on the speed of the wind at the time of the formation of the fireball/mushroom cloud, fallout can travel signicant distances.

And the Bushies are trying to sell this as if this were a "safer" use of nuclear weapons.

This is a very bad idea.

Here's a very relevant article written in 2001:

"Tactical Nuclear Weapons" against Afghanistan?
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html>

START QUOTES:

Dubbed by the Pentagon as "the Big Ones", the GBUs ("guided bomb unit") are 5000lb laser guided bombs with improved BLU-113 warheads, capable of penetrating several meters of reinforced concrete. The BLU-113 is the most powerful conventional "earth penetrating warhead."

While the Pentagon's "Big Ones" are classified as "conventional weapons", the official statements fail to mention that the same "bunker buster bombs" launched from a B-52, a B-2 stealth bomber or an F-16 aircraft can also be equipped with a nuclear device. The B61-11 is the " nuclear version" of its "conventional" BLU-113 counterpart. The B61-11 was developed from the old "conventional" B61-7 "gravity bomb."

...snip...

Osama's nuclear device is labelled a "dirty bomb" conveying the impression that America's B611-11 is "clean" The "dirty bomb" is developed from nuclear waste.

America's tactical nuclear weapons are said to be "safe" in comparison to those of Osama. Administration statements suggest, in this regard, that a so-called "low-yield" earth penetrating tactical nuclear weapon such as the B61-11 would "limit collateral damage" and therefore be relatively safe to use.6

These new buzz words are being spread by the US media to develop public support for the use of "tactical nuclear weapons" against an an opponent which now possesses nuclear capabilities. Yet the the scientific evidence on this issue is unequivocal: the impacts on civilians of the "low yield" B61-11 would be devastating "because of the large amount of radioactive dirt thrown out in the explosion, the hypothetical 5-kiloton weapon ... would produce a large area of lethal fallout."7

END QUOTES.

Here is a point everyone needs to keep in mind...the weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were crude 10-kiloton nuclear devices used in an air-burst mode. Both devices were exploded at about 2000 feet above their targets, producing the maximum effect of heat and radiation. Even though both weapons were used in an air-burst mode, a tremendous amount of fallout was produced from what was incinerated below in the main area of impact and sucked into the resulting mushroom cloud.

As noted above, the so-called nuclear bunker busters are 5-kiloton weapons and are designed to be used in a sub-ground mode. At first glance, one could assume they will produce roughly half the explosive yield of the 10-kiloton weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Not so fast.

It has been almost 60 years since the two 10-kiloton bombs were used on Japan. During that time, nuclear weapon design technology and materials used has improved dramatically, making today's 5-kiloton weapon capable of producing a blast at least TWICE that of the crudely designed and manufactured Japanese bombs.

Think about that for a few seconds, and then think about the amount of fallout that will be created from a ground-burst 5-kiloton nuclear device. Because of the fact that they will be exploding just below the surface of the ground, these devices will pull an amazing amount of radioactive material into the atmosphere...many times the amount created by the two Japanese bombs. Any people living downwind will be affected by the fallout from such a device...the closer to the target, the worse the effects.

Repeat. This is a very bad idea.

[Mal]

7. "America's tactical nuclear weapons are said to be "safe"...

...in comparison to those of Osama."

By the same argument, lead is a safe food additive, compared to cyanide.
An excellent example of the US government's opinion of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As with all treaties, and international laws, they only apply to other countries.

[TedinAZ]

11. Ummm...not quite

The uranium Gun device used over Hiroshima had a yeild "approximately" 16 Kilotons, which is the standard measure, equal to 1000 tons of TNT.

The plutonium implosion device used over Nagasaki ws "approximately" 20 kilotons.

In neither case was persistant radioactivity of the ionizing type a serious issue. Neither in the immediate area, nor downwind.

Although current devices are more "efficient" in using fissionables, the measure is still the same, so a 5 kilton weapon is indeed half as powerful as a 10 kiloton weapon. The analogy is that a car that goes 5 miles an hour, is half as fast as a car that goes 10 miles per hour, the measure is standard, no matter the amount of gasoline used to get there.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

12. My bad on the size of the Japanese A-bombs...

...I shouldn't have relied on memory. But I'll stand by my commentary on what a ground-level nuclear burst will do.

[newyawker99]

15. Hi TedinAZ!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[NickB79]

18. 5-kt nuke twice as powerful as a 10-kt? Huh?

The classification of a nuclear warhead is based upon the explosive force it generates, either through testing or theoretically. They may need to use less fissile material today than they did in the 40's to create similar yields, but the yields themselves are still measured the same way. How can a bomb producing 5 kilotons of explosive power produce twice as much of a blast as a 10 kiloton bomb? I know they've worked to produce warheads that focus the initial fission event at the core more intensely to get more "bang for your buck" from the uranium/plutonium, but the increased blast would then change the rating of the bomb to reflect the greater destructive power, no?

[Frangible]

22. Does anyone else see the irony

Of using WMDs to stop other people from getting WMDs?

[grilled onions]

3. Why does a man of "peace"

spend so much time and many on weapons of destruction?

[OldSoldier]

14. Who said Bush was a man of peace?

Peace is bad for his approval rating.

[zinsky]

4. Isn't That Just What the World Needs Right Now?

The ability to blow large, radioactive holes in the ground? Perfect.

What do you expect when the lunatics are running the asylum.

Bush and his cronies are certifiably insane.....

[drscm]

5. Sadly, the rest of the headline should be

"And He Is Dying To Use It!"

[Donna Zen]

6. Limited nuclear warfare on the battlefield

Another great idea from the RAND and Wohlstettler, the mentor of Perle and Wolfowitz.

[spooked]

10. Is that 400 BILLION for Defense Spending for ONE YEAR!????

PLEASE tell me this is a joke?? What has this world come to?

"The bill I sign today authorizes $400 billion over the next fiscal year to prepare our military for all that lies ahead."

[Media_Lies_Daily]

13. You got it. Obscene, isn't it? Imagine what $50 billion could have...

...done elsewhere in the budget.

[bvar22]

19. $400Billion/year plus change...

and that doesn't count the additional $87Billion for Iraq, or the funding for the FBI (now engaged in international operations) or the CIA. Another $7Billion to fund StarWars appears elswhere.

How much for Homeland Security? Anyone know?

[NickB79]

20. Found a misprint: it should read

"to prepare our military for all Bush's lies ahead." Sadly, in that case, 400 billion is never enough to prepare for him.

[LeighAnn]

16. Not more than 1/2 hour ago I heard Bush say on live TV

"Countries that are free don't develop Weapons of Mass Destruction." I thought it was ironic and hypocritical at the time, then I saw this headline.

[Cat Atomic]

21. Handing money to weapons contractors, and promoting fear of the US

at the same time. I think the nuclear threat has lost it's edge in the last 10 years or so. Many people don't really believe the US would use the big nukes. But these "small" ones... well, people can be scared again.

[bloom]

23. This is very bad

If this is spun to make Nukes acceptable to people.

"The Bush administration's continuing embrace of nuclear weapons is neither necessary nor safe," writes Stephen J. Schwartz, publisher and executive director of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in the Chicago Tribune. "By seeking to develop smaller, more precise, more usable nuclear weapons, the administration wants all the benefits of nuclear weapons without any of the messy side effects.

"But will this strengthen deterrence? Nuclear weapons are feared because they are uniquely destructive. Miniaturizing them so they become largely indistinguishable from conventional weapons, to be used against underground bunkers where no one except their intended targets will experience them, strips them of their awesome aura.

"Perhaps that's what the obsolescing nuclear priesthood wants: nuclear weapons that aren't perceived as nuclear weapons, by either the people charged with using them or by U.S. citizens, in whose name they would be used. That's what is so alarming about the administration's plans -- the idea that nuclear weapons can be made small enough to be considered just like any other weapon."


:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[punpirate]

24. Whenver this subject comes up...

... I point people to this article from FAS:

http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm

Very elucidating.

Cheers.