Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (444301)	8/17/2003 2:03:05 PM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

New Nukes? No Way William M. Arkin, William M. Arkin is a military affairs analyst who writes regularly for Opinion. E-mail: warkin@ igc.org. SOUTH POMFRET, Vt. — Earlier this month, more than 150 nuclear scientists, war planners and policymakers met behind closed doors at Strategic Command in Omaha to discuss the U.S. nuclear posture. Strategic-arms reductions were debated. The health of the existing nuclear stockpile was discussed. And the possibility was raised of creating a new generation of nuclear weapons suitable for combat against terrorists or rogue states possessing weapons of mass destruction. American proponents of "mini-nukes" argue that the country needs a new weapon that can attack facilities deep underground or burn up bioweapons with less harm to civilians. They say that a new generation of limited-use nuclear weapons could be an important deterrent in dealing with rogue states, that opponents would be less likely to build underground facilities or stockpile bioweapons if they knew the U.S. had a nuclear weapon it would be willing to use. The Bush administration is on the record supporting the concept of new, more usable nuclear weapons. But the idea is both unnecessary and dangerous. The long-term consequence of developing new nuclear weapons might well be to push Iran, North Korea and other states to work harder and faster in developing and manufacturing their own nukes. Moreover, as we witnessed in March during the "shock and awe" phase of the Iraq war, the country's latest-generation bombs and other "smart weapons" seemed more than up to the tasks at hand. We don't need to further alienate the rest of the world by rejoining the nuclear arms race. This is not the first time that bomb makers have proposed more specialized and usable weapons of mass destruction. On numerous occasions in the last 30 years, nuclear weapons advocates have pushed their point of view with sympathetic administrations or when it seemed possible to turn world events to their advantage. Early in the Reagan administration, the nuclear faithful attempted to revive interest in the neutron bomb, first proposed during the Carter administration as a way of providing "enhanced radiation" with reduced blast that could be used to kill Soviet troops if necessary without destroying European cities. During the administration of George H.W. Bush, the keepers of the nuclear flame scrambled to formulate a new rationale for developing a next generation of nukes absent the threat of the Soviet Union. A Strategic Deterrence Study Group organized by the Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff predicted that "more nuclear weapons states are likely to emerge" and warned of American combat with a nuclear-armed nation such as Iraq. "We are not comfortable that we can count on deterrence to deal with many lethal Third World threats," the group stated. It proposed that the U.S. should "retain an option to leave ambiguous whether it would employ nuclear weapons" in retaliation against a variety of nonnuclear provocations. But despite near-constant urging from the nuclear constituency for at least the last 20 years, no new tailored nuclear weapons have been produced. All that could change now. Or not. It certainly looks like the U.S. is closer than it has ever been to building a smaller, more usable nuke. The administration's 2002 Nuclear Posture Review found a new rationale for using nuclear weapons in the unstable world revealed by Sept. 11. And the nation's fears of terrorism and of an increasingly hostile nuclear-armed North Korea may make such an extreme step more politically palatable. But there is one powerful force that could keep a new nuclear genie in its bottle: the uniformed military. Men and women in uniform have, from the beginning, been the truest skeptics and the most important power passively opposing neutron bombs and mini-nukes. After the 1991 Gulf War, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Carl E. Vuono wrote of the "preeminence of conventional forces" despite Iraq's chemical weapons and its nascent nuclear potential. "It was America's conventional forces, not its nuclear arsenal, that defined President Bush's response to the crisis and ultimately decided its outcome." Today, the conventional military (which is by far the dominant force in the American military) not only believes that it has the tools to deal with any threat; it also recognizes the long-term benefit of not fanning the flames of proliferation. Senior officers are privately shaking their heads about how, while they are on the front lines winning the war on terrorism, the rest of the government does little to deal with the roots of the problem. And many of them see a renewed nuclear focus as likely to aggravate the situation. It's not hard to understand why nuclear scientists would love to get a crack at incorporating the enormous advances that have transformed conventional weaponry into a new generation of nuclear bombs. But it is these very technologies that have made nuclear weapons largely unnecessary. In Iraq, the U.S. military avoided many dangers, leapfrogging over them, going around them when necessary, employing special forces and covert ops and cyber-strategies. Many bunkers and other tough-to-get-to targets were left standing: The U.S. military found other ways to neutralize any advantages they provided the Iraqis. The Defense Department's official position is that it "has not identified any requirements for new nuclear weapons," according to a briefing paper prepared by the office of the secretary of Defense. "Cost and feasibility studies related to possible nuclear modernization," the paper says, "in no way represent a decision to proceed with development of a new warhead." But this is pure evasion. The administration's interest in nuclear tools to fight the war on terrorism is about more than just keeping options open. And the administration needs to understand that even contingency planning for the development of new nuclear weapons is threatening and can encourage other countries to join or escalate the arms race. The conventional military needs to stand up and be counted. The Iraq war plan was constructed with the possibility that Iraq might use chemical or biological weapons. Saddam Hussein had underground bunkers galore. At the top, the nuclear establishment pushed prudent contingencies just in case, but in the field, where commanders were responsible for their troops and the real war was being waged, no one wanted anything to do with something that ultimately would dishonor the American military and America. CC

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (444301)	8/17/2003 2:03:46 PM
From: Skywatcher	Respond to of 769670

To you....anything that IS the truth is a RUMOR..... CC

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (444301)	8/17/2003 2:07:59 PM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Here's another Sicko just like you! Move to Fresno....even those living there are outraged at this typical right wing nut case ready to nuke people....even AMERICANS Duncan's E-mail Note Ignites Fury By Pablo Lopez and Matt Leedy The Fresno Bee Friday 15 August 2003 Fresno council member wrote of using 'dirty bomb' to kill liberals. Fresno residents and community leaders, outraged by an e-mail message in which City Council Member Jerry Duncan wished he had a "dirty bomb" to kill every liberal in Fresno, called Thursday for his resignation, recall or reprimand. A crowd that gathered in City Hall also chastised City Council Member Brian Calhoun and his chief assistant, Ann Kloose, who wrote in an e-mail that police should "Cap" members of the Human Relations Commission. The commissioners voted unanimously Thursday to ask City Council President Tom Boyajian to reprimand Duncan. They also want Duncan to formally apologize to the commission and the community at the council's Tuesday meeting. "An elected official used city time and city equipment to make threatening remarks about volunteers for the community," Commissioner Cary Catalano said. "What type of precedent does this set for members of the community who want to be involved but are fearful that if they disagree with an elected official, they will be threatened?" Fellow council members called the e-mails embarrassing. A few commissioners said they were childish and distracting. Leaders of Peace Fresno were saddened and offended. About 30 people filled a second-story meeting room at City Hall, where the HRC gathered for its regular meeting. Most agreed they would be scrutinized by authorities, and likely face harsh punishment, if they made comments similar to those attributed to Duncan and Kloose. Kelly Borkert of Fresno said if Duncan "had any dignity and self-respect for the city, he would resign." Duncan and Kloose typed out their remarks June 10 during a council budget hearing on funding for the city's Human Relations Commission. Kloose wrote to Calhoun: "If these HRC folks bring down a crowd and get unruly, I'm calling [police] to send over some officers to 'Cap' these guys ;-)" At the same meeting, Duncan e-mailed two of his staff members and Kloose: "If I had one dirty bomb and I could eliminate all the liberals in Fresno at once." When Duncan was asked whether the commission's public criticism was motivated by politics, he said: "Absolutely. ... The response I have gotten from the public on this has been 100% supportive." Commissioners said comments voiced at their Thursday meeting had nothing to do with politics. "It's about the difference between what is right and what is wrong," Catalano said. "And this was absolutely wrong." The Fresno City Attorney's Office made the e-mails public after The Bee submitted a public records request to learn what council members were writing during the city's recent budget deliberations that resulted in a $726 million budget. Calhoun and Kloose declined to comment about the messages. Duncan issued a statement: "The e-mail was not intended for public consumption. It was nothing more than a flippant comment. ... For anyone who may have read this two-month-old e-mail, who was not part of this private conversation and somehow misunderstood or was offended by the comments, I apologize." Commissioners were unmoved by Duncan's statement. "I believe he apologized because he was caught, not because he was sorry he said it," Catalano said. Alex Correa, union leader for the 800-member Fresno City Employees Association, said Duncan and Calhoun should resign immediately. Commission Chairwoman Debbie Reyes tried to file a criminal complaint with the Fresno Police Department when she learned of the "dirty bomb" message, but she was told to report it to another agency. She said she gave the e-mails to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Fresno County District Attorney's Office. Because of a potential conflict of interest, police Sgt. Herman Silva said department policy calls for any allegation against a city official to be referred to an outside agency. "It would be like investigating your boss," Silva said. FBI supervisory special agent John Gliatta said bureau policy prevents him from making a statement about a potential investigation or even acknowledging if his office received a complaint. Assistant District Attorney Robert Ellis did not return a call made to his office. Mayor Alan Autry, who often is politically aligned with Duncan, said: "The comments are inappropriate in a public or private forum. The bad thing is that they were said. The good thing is Jerry has apologized and taken responsibility." During the budget deliberations, Duncan and Calhoun emerged as fierce critics of the HRC, which is charged with monitoring hate crimes and organizing community events. The two were on the losing end of a council vote to amend the city's budget and give the commission $193,100 for this fiscal year. Duncan has been at odds with the HRC before. In March, he removed Fresno State professor Sudarshan Kapoor -- his appointee -- from the HRC after the commission brought the council an anti-war resolution sponsored by Peace Fresno. Duncan eventually offered Kapoor the seat back, but the professor instead accepted an appointment from City Council Member Brad Castillo. In April, commission members accused Duncan of harassing them when he pasted to the panel's meeting room door newspaper articles of Iraqis kissing U.S. soldiers' hands after the fall of Baghdad. On the same day -- after learning the commission did not regularly recite the Pledge of Allegiance at its meetings -- Duncan took a U.S. flag from his council office and placed it in a room where the HRC was scheduled to meet. "Councilman Duncan has consistently come off the wall," Reyes said, "and violated the rights of the HRC to continue to do the work that we do." CC