Hahahahaha...
As Iran is currently under international scrutiny over it's non-existent nuclear weapons programme, this next tidbit of information becomes all the more amusing...
----------
George Bush is pushing for a multi-billion dollar programme to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons.
The Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) programme will include “tactical” nuclear weapons – designed for use on the battlefield – blurring the distinction between nuclear and conventional war.
This plan is particularly chilling, coming as US journalist Seymour Hersh exposed a Pentagon plan involving “the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon” against “underground nuclear sites” in Iran.
Hersh also reported that a “former official” in Washington had revealed that US warplanes based near Iran “have been flying simulated nuclear weapons delivery missions – rapid ascending manoeuvres known as ‘over the shoulder’ bombing – since last summer”.
Congress has agreed to spend $15.5 million to develop a nuclear bunker-buster called the “Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator”.
The Bush administration is also investigating warheads that do not require underground testing.
This would avoid the complications imposed by international treaties. Washington’s contempt for such treaties is well known. In 1968, the US signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, pledging to reduce its stock of nuclear weapons.
However, today the US stockpile has risen to nearly 10,000 nuclear warheads, with more than half of them active or operational.
The pledge to build new tactical nuclear weapons makes a mockery of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which binds the US to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons, not their development.
The US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and has refused to support ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
- http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8692 -
------------------
Now, isn't that interesting? Not only is the US actively developing nuclear weapons which they say Iran shouldn't under the same conventions they are bound by...but they have to think up ridiculously cartoonesque names for them as well...
hahahahaha
hahahah
hahahahahahah
I can't think of any reason an Islamic theocracy should be allowed to have nukes. What's their command and control of them going to be like? What would they plan on using them for? If nuclear proliferation is allowed to trickle down into the hands of every rogue third world crap hole on earth, it's only a matter of time before they get used against the west as a terrorist weapon.
Originally posted by shavixmirPerhaps the fact that you give credit to a website named "socialist worker" partially explains your ignorant and naive assumption that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.
Hahahahaha...
As Iran is currently under international scrutiny over it's non-existent nuclear weapons programme, this next tidbit of information becomes all the more amusing...
----------
George Bush is pushing for a multi-billion dollar programme to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons.
The Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) programme wi ...[text shortened]... ridiculously cartoonesque names for them as well...
hahahahaha
hahahah
hahahahahahah
Originally posted by General PutzerI think the point is not that Iran should have the bomb, but that the US shouldn't either.
I can't think of any reason an Islamic theocracy should be allowed to have nukes. What's their command and control of them going to be like? What would they plan on using them for? If nuclear proliferation is allowed to trickle down into the hands of every rogue third world crap hole on earth, it's only a matter of time before they get used against the west as a terrorist weapon.
If the US keeps trying to unilaterally ensure it hegemony by military means--including by arming itself with new types of nuclear weapons--instead of supporting multilateral attempts to impose legal policies aimed at disarming everyone including the US, then the result will be to kickstart an arms race that ultimately makes everyone less safe, including the US.
uhuh pawnkey I understand your position, the US is guilty of saying "do as I say, not as I do'.
Too simplistic. The current "nuclear community" is indeed too big, nukes are bad, blah blah blah, but you can't turn back the clock. NO crappy little third world countries should have nukes, that's what we're talking about. We need to prevent them from getting their hands on them because they will eventually be used.
Originally posted by General Putzerwhat do you mean by "too simplistic"?
uhuh pawnkey I understand your position, the US is guilty of saying "do as I say, not as I do'.
Too simplistic. The current "nuclear community" is indeed too big, nukes are bad, blah blah blah, but you can't turn back the clock. NO crappy little third world countries should have nukes, that's what we're talking about. We need to prevent them from getting their hands on them because they will eventually be used.
I agree that Iran shouldn't have nukes. But as long as US policy focuses on "Who should have nukes", rather than dismantling all nukes, then there will be leaders who feel their country has a "right" to have nukes, no matter what the US says.
If Washington was serious about keeping nukes from proliferating to third world countries, then one might surmise they would get behind efforts to stop nuclear proliferation, rather than negate and discredit international non-proliferation treaties.
Instead, Washington is now encouraging India to develope nuclear weapons. I wonder how they feel about that in Pakistan.
Originally posted by General PutzerIn pursuing its current unilateral course, the U.S. is ironically increasing, not decreasing, the probability of nuclear proliferation. Countries that oppose the U.S. desire a deterrent against US aggression; and the only effective deterrent is nuclear. So naturally such countries will strive to obtain nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, without international assistance, and multilateral agreements--which the U.S. is in the short-sighted habit of disdaining--the U.S. is unlikely to prevent rogue states from turning their desires into reality indefinitely ; it's already overstretched militarily and financially in Iraq, for example, and short of allies (Berlusconi is gone; Blair will follow shortly).
uhuh pawnkey I understand your position, the US is guilty of saying "do as I say, not as I do'.
Too simplistic. The current "nuclear community" is indeed too big, nukes are bad, blah blah blah, but you can't turn back the clock. NO crappy little third world countries should have nukes, that's what we're talking about. We need to prevent them from getting their hands on them because they will eventually be used.
I am not sure Iran's substantial and educated middle class would appreciate your designation of their homeland as a crappy third-world country.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030200183_2.html
Burns said one of the most crucial aspects of the pact is that India would subject future civilian plants to inspections. "This is a significant gain for nonproliferation purposes and it certainly is far better than the zero influence we had before the deal," he said. India, however, won the right to classify reactors as for either military or civilian use, which could limit inspections.
Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which would be in charge of the inspections, praised the deal. "It would also bring India closer as an important partner in the nonproliferation regime," he said in a statement issued from his office in Vienna.
Originally posted by Darth SpongeBoth countries have nukes.
what do you mean by "too simplistic"?
I agree that Iran shouldn't have nukes. But as long as US policy focuses on "Who should have nukes", rather than dismantling all nukes, then there will be leaders who feel their country has a "right" to have nukes, no matter what the US says.
If Washington was serious about keeping nukes from proliferating ...[text shortened]... raging India to develope nuclear weapons. I wonder how they feel about that in Pakistan.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI don't see how increased production of nuclear weapons with no oversite of military reactors is a win for non-proliferation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030200183_2.html
Burns said one of the most crucial aspects of the pact is that India would subject future civilian plants to inspections. "This is a significant gain for nonproliferation purposes and it certainly is far better than the zero influence we had before the deal," he said. ...[text shortened]... er in the nonproliferation regime," he said in a statement issued from his office in Vienna.
read the rest of the article, specifically the part that comes right after your quote where it begins: "Some nonproliferation experts, however, suggested that the deal could trigger an arms race in South Asia..."