-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Eric wrote:
The junior Bush is very fond of small tactical nukes, You know this how? In April, the media reported that the US was considering development of a new small tactical nuke specifically tailored for use against "rogue dictators" hiding in underground bunkers or heavily fortified command centers, in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty. These would be used for, in the words of the director of Sandia, deterrence in the non-Russian world."
Since such research is currently illegal,
Oh? It's not illegal to think about it. No treaty was ever written in stone: in fact(if I'm not mistaken), since treaties always have an "overriding national interest" escape clause, IMO it would be highly irresponsible NOT to be thinking of avenues to eventually explore strategies beyond them.
Congress has tacked something onto the 2001 Defense Authorization Bill mandating a study by DOE and DOD into small-scale nuclear weapons use against dictators hiding in "hard and deeply buried targets." George W. Bush, John Warner, and Wayne Allard, are the culprits here.
But it's not just about nukes! Here's an excerpt which outlines the bigger picture, from the conference report to accompany H.R. 4205: SEC. 1044. REPORT ON THE DEFEAT OF HARDENED AND DEEPLY BURIED TARGETS. (a) STUDY.--The Secretary of Defense shall, in conjunction with the Secretary of Energy, conduct a study relating to the defeat of hardened and deeply buried targets. Under the study, the Secretaries shall-- (1) review-- (A) the requirements of the United States to defeat hardened and deeply buried targets and stockpiles of chemical and biological agents and related capabilities; and (B) current and future plans to meet those requirements; (2) determine if those plans adequately address all such requirements; (3) identify potential future hardened and deeply buried targets and other related targets; (4) determine what resources and research and development efforts are needed to defeat the targets identified under paragraph (3) as well as other requirements to defeat stockpiles of chemical and biological agents and related capabilities; (5) assess both current and future options to defeat hardened and deeply buried targets as well as concepts to defeat stockpiles of chemical and biological agents and related capabilities; and (6) determine the capability and cost of each option assessed under paragraph (5). What's the problem? I hardly see how figurehead politicians rubberstamping funds for national security research can be held culpable for anything their strategists and engineers may happen to think up. Personally, I think if there's anything to really be nervous about, it's the classified R&D studies you aren't hearing about. Oh well. ~F. *** "Critics frequently refer to the icy rationality of the Hudson Institute, the RAND Corporation and other such organizations. I'm always tempted to ask in reply, 'Would you prefer a warm, human error? Do you feel better with a nice emotional mistake?' We cannot expect good discussion of security problems if we are going to label every attempt at detachment as callous, every attempt at objectivity as immoral. Technical details are not the only important operative facts. Human and moral factors...must never be missing from policies and public discussion. But emotionalism and sentimentality, as opposed to morality and concern, only confuse the debates. Nor can experts be expected to repeat, 'If, heavean forbid...", before every sentence." - --Herman Kahn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Hush 2.0 wl8EARECAB8FAjvIvJIYHGF1dG8zMDEwOTRAaHVzaG1haWwuY29tAAoJEKadvsVlUK4P +xcAnRGyXfnaEh3LTDS8RlGBAwUJ31YFAKClR5hjf95GFi0xwzOeFwimodXSlA== =YgwR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 03:13:06PM -0700, auto301094@hushmail.com wrote:
But it's not just about nukes! Here's an excerpt which outlines the bigger picture, from the conference report to accompany H.R. 4205:
SEC. 1044. REPORT ON THE DEFEAT OF HARDENED AND DEEPLY BURIED TARGETS.
Is it just me, or does anyone else not see the word "nuclear" in this reported conference report? -Declan
participants (2)
-
auto301094@hushmail.com
-
Declan McCullagh