Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
U.s. Congress Blocks Funding For Mini Nuke Dev  
User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1392 times:

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,303539,00.html
only a link in german since all u.s. sites seem to have all their journalists in the reagan funeral motorcade, i hope someone can add an english link!

the u.s. congress has blocked funding for the mini nuke development. mini nukes are a part of the new neo con doctrines that call for preemtive strikes and warfare, including small scale nuclear weapons.
gladly some people seem to have some common sense in the u.s. congress and did not allow this arguably illegal development of small scale "more usable" nuclear weapons.
information about why this development request under rumsfelds supervision and the new bush doctrines are illegal can be found as part of the FY94 Defense Authorization Act (Section 3136 of P.L.103-160)


10=2
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1356 times:

Yeah, no bias in this thread.  Insane

Low yield nukes are an attempt to move away from the Cold War doctrine of massive retaliation and global destruction with thousands of high yield, thermonuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons' purpose now is defense. Make sure the enemy knows you have them and will use them in response to an attack by NBC weapons.
_______________________________________________________________

After reading a more reliable news source, the real story is a House subcommittee removed the funding. Of course the bill still has a long way to go so it could easily be restored. (The real reason is this House subcommittee would rather spend millions on pork barrel projects like flood control studies than national defense.)

[Edited 2004-06-10 16:29:05]


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineClipperhawaii From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2033 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1343 times:

The U.S. Congress has not blocked funding. They have not voted on this at all. It was blocked by a House sub-committee. The committee refused to provide the necessary funding for research and they told the White House to re-think it's plans.

Get your facts straight zak. Way to spin a story for your own leftist agenda.

The administration has said it has no plans to develop the weapons. But it does not want to close the door to the "bunker-busting" nuclear weapons it said may be needed to bore into underground facilities and the smaller weapons with less than half the yield of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.



[Edited 2004-06-10 16:34:12]


"You Can't Beat The Experience"
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1330 times:

Clipper, if the House is sending it back, it's being blocked by Congress. The House is the more free-spirited of the two branches, and if it is sending it back, it's never going to see the light of day.

So Zak is correct, and you're just harping on him to harp on him.

And, we don't need more nukes anyway.


User currently offlineClipperhawaii From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2033 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1304 times:

U.S. Congress is an entire body not a sub-committee. It was stated that Congress blocked it as if they had voted on it as a group. SO he is WRONG.

Stop defending your leftist friends and get your facts straight too. If anyone harps on here it is YOU. I am actually surprised that you don't know the workings of the legislative branch of our government.

You may click this link to gain knowledge on the Appropriations Committee.

http://appropriations.house.gov/






[Edited 2004-06-10 19:34:20]


"You Can't Beat The Experience"
User currently offlineL.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2209 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1279 times:

These were, indeed, a bad idea. We can have a much more effective conventional defense with the money we were going to spend on this stupid thing. Bravo Congress. Nukes are only for scaring the shit out of anyone who messes with us or our friends.

User currently offlineSSTjumbo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1263 times:

As a (apparently not always?) conservative thinker, I have to think mini nukes are the stupidest idea since the first belly flop. Thanks congress!

User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1257 times:

I think the good thing about nuclear weapons is that nobody considers using them (except maybe a few terrorists who have smoked a little too much pot). They were made to be unused, and it better stay that way.

Should "mini-nukes" ever become a reality, and should they be deployed to bust some bunker in the Middle East, the world would have to prepare for World War III, the terminal one. A nuke is a nuke, no matter if mini or biggie, and any nuclear attack will almost automatically be answered with a nuclear counter-attack, in whatever way.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1238 times:

"Yeah, no bias in this thread. "

where have i claimed that the thread was not biased?

"After reading a more reliable news source, the real story is a House subcommittee removed the funding."

so reliable that you did not post it? i even asked for an english language source in the initial posting


"Of course the bill still has a long way to go so it could easily be restored."

we all know you are crazy, thanks for proving it yet again


"The U.S. Congress has not blocked funding. They have not voted on this at all."
i never said they did vote on it. i agree however that it might have been more accurate to point out that it was a commitee that refused funding. i was in a rush and i had actually expected that someone would post a english language follow up very soon making what happened clear to english readers

"The committee refused to provide the necessary funding for research and they told the White House to re-think it's plans."

re think? the white house shouldnt propose illegal stuff in the first place

"Get your facts straight zak. Way to spin a story for your own leftist agenda."

i didnt spin anything. fact is that funding is cut as we speak


" Nukes are only for scaring the shit out of anyone who messes with us or our friends."

who would have thought i would ever agree with l.1011 on something, whoa!
the problem with the doctrines of the current administration and those specific "mini nukes" is that they want nukes that are "more usable" then current ones. current nuclear weapons cause way too much havoc to be used except in a terminal world war scenario. that is also their strenght because noone will cross a certain line, hence adding alot of international stability(mutually assured destruction comes to mind here).
the big no no envisioned by the hawks around dubya was to create a new breed of weapons that contaminate a smaller area and create less fallout to make them more usable. it is good to know that even otherwise lunatic neo conservatives think of this as a very stupid idea.

thinking of the otherwise extreme views of our resident neo cons who do not agree with it, i get to wonder how extremist those who ordered the development are, especially considering their power, this is a very frightening train of thought!



10=2
User currently offlineL.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2209 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1238 times:

Wow. Did Zak and I just agree? Holy shit!

User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1234 times:

Nukes are only for scaring the shit out of anyone who messes with us or our friends.

And if you don't make the enemy believe you're willing to use them, then nuclear weapons become nothing but an expensive toy occupying space and collecting dust.

Right now our nuclear arsenal is designed to fight the Cold War. Lets say that if North Korea decides to lob a few Taepo-Dong ICBM's our way but thankfully the anti missile system intercepts the incoming warheads. We'll have to respond, most likely with Trident II's from an Ohio class SSBN. This means at least six to ten independent warheads will be used in retaliation depending on how many each Trident II is carrying. With one of these bunker busting nuclear weapons, we could destroy any missile silos, command and control centers, and fry Kim "Hair" Jong-il in his bunker. All of this without the massive civilian deaths and fallout over all of Korea.



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineRjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1218 times:

Reply # 10 says it best. Mininukes make absolute sense. If they were turned down now, it will only be a few more years until that is changed.

User currently offlineAirplanetire From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1809 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1219 times:

Let me pose my thoughts to you, B757300. You state that we need these mini-nukes to make sure that the enemy does not attack us, knowing we will respond with a nuclear attack. If it were not for past and especially current policy of preemptively invading countries, showing an unwillingness to compromise, and showing an unwillingness to abide by international law, we would not have nearly the problem with "enemies" that we do now. One might think that since we do have the enemies already, we need the weapons. I believe though that we do not need to stay in such a position forever. We could change our image to the world starting TODAY if we only recognized the importance of doing this. If we had widespread support worldwide, not necessarily for any or all things, but just in general, terrorist groups and our current enemies would be undermined in their ideas and goals to hurt or eliminate us. To have power to accomplish these goals, these entities require a following and if they do not have that following and support, they lack the power to carry out their mission. I don't mean for any of that to sound like an attack on your ideas because I respect your ideas and can see where you are coming on, but this is just my take on the issue.

Clipperhawaii, keep in mind that not you, conservatives, liberals, or anybody else has a monopoly on the truth. Please do not suggest that people are "defending their leftitist friends" or tell them to "get their facts straight." Based on your tone, you sound like you feel this bill is still alive and kicking since it has not officially been voted down. There is also the belief that is has been killed because funding for it has been denied for the time being. Depending on how you see it, either is correct. Neither is WRONG, as you told Zak the latter is. He has his facts straight and so do you. Just because his take on the facts is different from your own does not mean he is wrong and you are right. It means you two have differing opinions. Keep this relatively civil and constructive. Some users obviously feel that the mininuke bill lives on while others clearly feel it is dead. You all are capable of civilized debate. Do not say something you would not say to that person's face were to ever be speaking to them. Mostly everyone probably has something of merit to say. A truly sound opinion is only formed when you get new ideas from other people, whatever their beliefs are, and can understand both sides of the issue.

Just keep this stuff in mind everyone. It will help us all.

-Airplanetire

[Edited 2004-06-11 04:56:11]

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1212 times:

Anybody else but me think that the words "Mini" and "Nuke" should not be used in the same sentence?

Now "Maxi" and "Nuke" that work.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineVafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1201 times:

Lets make them so then we can sell them to Iraq and later get bombed by our own weapons!

Signed,
Conservatives...

(joking)



I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1191 times:

I oppose the development of such a weapon as well. If someone wants to hide in a hole during a war, I would think it easier, yet just as effective to just seal it up, then try to blast your way in.





User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1182 times:

B757,

Your idea is all nice and dandy, but why do we need to use nuclear weapons? The fallout from this lasts for tens of generations, even if it is "mini".



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21631 posts, RR: 55
Reply 17, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1162 times:

These were, indeed, a bad idea. We can have a much more effective conventional defense with the money we were going to spend on this stupid thing. Bravo Congress. Nukes are only for scaring the shit out of anyone who messes with us or our friends.

Well I'll be damned, I just agreed with L.1011! Hell hath frozen over....



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineL.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2209 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1144 times:

I hereby crown this thread:


WIERDEST THREAD EVER IN THE HISTORY OF AIRLINERS.NET!


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
New Member Of Congress Wants Koran For Swearing-In posted Fri Dec 1 2006 20:20:41 by Falcon84
Trade SUV For Mini Cooper S? posted Thu Sep 1 2005 22:17:36 by Eatmybologna
US Border Security - Raj For Congress posted Fri Oct 13 2006 23:10:28 by IFEMaster
1996-GOP Congress Blocked Clinton's Push For Anti- posted Tue Sep 5 2006 11:46:23 by NWDC10
Iraq War Veteran To Run For Congress posted Tue Dec 20 2005 03:39:12 by Tbar220
Off To The Airport For The ATL Mini-meet posted Wed Sep 28 2005 20:21:05 by LHMark
Record Low Approval Ratings For Bush, Congress posted Mon Jun 13 2005 04:14:04 by KC135R
CPH Mini Meet Pics.. (sorry For The Long Wait ;)) posted Thu Jun 2 2005 15:52:01 by Pilot kaz
A.netter Announces Plan To Run For Congress posted Thu Nov 4 2004 16:49:01 by SHUPirate1
Friend's Dad Runs For Congress In Louisiana posted Wed Oct 13 2004 20:09:21 by Superfly