 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Barbie2004
Commander
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 338
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:43 am Post subject: Bunker Busters Busted By Congress |
 |
|
I do not understand. The Republicans are in control of both houses, and yet something so important as bunker busters could not pass?!?!
Have they not heard of Iran???
| Quote: | Congress jettisons nuclear bomb funds
President touted bunker buster as vital to U.S. security
James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Congress, in a surprising blow to the Bush administration's nuclear weapons ambitions, has eliminated funding for two major bomb research programs, including a so-called bunker buster that the president had said was essential to the country's security.
Relatively small amounts of money are involved -- tens of millions of dollars -- and the new weapons-research programs could be revived in later years. But the cuts agreed to by the House and the Senate, in which influential Republicans joined with Democratic opponents of the programs, amounted to a rejection of a major part of Bush's nuclear defense strategy.
"This has always been a hard sell," said David Smith, the chief operating officer of the National Institute for Public Policy, a conservative-leaning think tank that formulated what became the president's basic weapons strategy in 2000 and that placed many of its members in the administration. "The problem is the public -- and the Congress reflects this -- just doesn't understand the role of nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War world.
"We just don't seem to be able to turn the corner even on researching what's doable with new kinds of weapons. Bumper stickers aren't going to accomplish some of the missions this country is going to face."
Opponents of the new programs were ecstatic.
"This responsible decision demonstrates the growing bipartisan concern and distrust of the Bush administration's irresponsible and risky nuclear policy," Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, said in a statement after the appropriations bill was passed last weekend.
"The administration is using the war on terrorism as a flimsy excuse to find new uses for existing nuclear weapons and new nuclear weapons -- weapons that the Pentagon hasn't even officially asked for."
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a Washington-based group that advocates arms reductions, called the vote "a surprising and welcome rebuke of the administration's nuclear programs. It shows that not only are Democrats convinced, but key Republicans are convinced we don't need new nuclear weapons capabilities."
Overall nuclear weapons-related spending, most of which will be used to maintain the current stockpile of more than 10,000 warheads, will rise in fiscal 2005 to slightly more than $6.52 billion, up nearly $300 million from fiscal 2004.
But under the appropriations bill passed Saturday, funding for research into what is called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator -- a bomb that would burrow deep into the earth and destroy buried targets, such as enemy bunkers - - was completely eliminated. The White House had sought $27.6 million, up from $7.5 million last year.
In addition, $9 million that Bush had requested for research into new kinds of advanced weapons concepts was denied. Instead, the same amount of money was placed into a program to ensure the reliability of existing warheads.
And Congress slashed the White House's request for funding of design work on a new factory for producing plutonium "pits," the radioactive cores of warheads, from a requested $30 million to $7 million. In addition, Congress insisted that none of the money could be used for work on choosing the site of the proposed plant, to be called the Modern Pit Facility.
The National Nuclear Security Administration, the agency that oversees the weapons programs, was clearly frustrated, but officials there said it was not clear if the appropriations meant the programs would be shut down completely.
"It means we don't know yet what will happen," said Bryan Wilkes, an agency spokesman. "It's too early to tell. While we are disappointed that Congress did not support some of our programs, we will be looking at what else we can do."
The architect of the rebuke was the Republican chairman of the House's Energy and Water Appropriations subcommittee, Rep. David Hobson of Ohio.
He reduced the administration's funding requests last year but fought even harder this year. He has explained in interviews that he sees some of the weapons programs as unnecessary and counterproductive at a time when the United States is trying to persuade other countries to shut down nuclear weapons efforts.
"He felt very strongly about this, and he won this particular round. The U.S. has about 10,000 warheads in the stockpile already. To him, that number is enough," said Hobson's press secretary, Sara Perkins.
But total weapons-related spending rose, and some programs received a larger appropriation than the president had requested. These included a new chemistry and metallurgy research center at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and a microelectronics research program at the Sandia National Laboratories.
Supporters of the White House's efforts to create a new generation of warheads for the new security threats the country faces were undaunted.
"This will come up again and again and again," Smith said.
How successful such efforts will be remains to be seen. Hobson told the Washington Post that the rejection was "a clear signal from Congress" and that any attempt to revive the funding in next year's budget "would get the same reaction."
E-mail James Sterngold at jsterngold@sfchronicle.com.
Page A - 1
URL: [url]http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/23/MNGSPA04NG1.DTL [/url] |
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/23/MNGSPA04NG1.DTL
Everyone knows that if we would just be nice to the bad guys and unilateraly disarm, they will be nice to us.
If Ronald Reagan had only understood this! 
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PhantomSgt
Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 972
Location: GUAM, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:33 am Post subject: HeHeHe |
|
|
All while we quietly research on a Bunker Busting Neutron Bomb funded by the Oil for Food program.
_________________
Retired AF E-8
Independent that leans right of center. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beatrice1000
Resource Specialist
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1179
Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| They've been fighting about this for some time - I expected a roadblock. And there are problems & questions to be asked - especially with making tiny powerful bombs -- "portable" y'know... one has to think about the terrorists getting their hands on these things. I'm not sure how I feel about this. I see the need for the bunker busters and I know Rumsfeld wants this to go forward but I just don't know how upset to be on this at this time -- (in the long run, I don't see that technological advance in this area CAN be stopped anyway -- lasers and all, ... if one thinks beyond war and the applications for space travel). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kman
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 132
Location: Diamond Bar, Ca.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MOAB has a BIG brother. ....And it's a penetrator  .
Kurt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beatrice1000
Resource Specialist
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1179
Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Didn't we drag that thing over there shortly after the war started? Did we ever bring it home? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kman
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 132
Location: Diamond Bar, Ca.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Beatrice1000 wrote: |
Didn't we drag that thing over there shortly after the war started? Did we ever bring it home? |
Ya, but there was never a good time to use it as it would have caused massive collateral damage. Shoot, we were dropping bombs with their explosive fills replaced with cement. Worked great too. You could drop that rascal on a tank between two houses, take out the tank with its kinetic energy alone and leave the houses untouched.
IMO the MOAB is perfect to drop on terrorist camps around the world. BTW: Despite it’s media debut showed it being dropped from a missile magnet (C-130), the MOAB will fit internally in a B2.
Kman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WilliamShipley
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 28 Aug 2004
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Realistically, though, under what circumstances would we actually use a nuclear weapon as a bunker buster? Even if it was a small weapon with similar yield to conventional, the fuss raised would be so much that no one would be willing to take the heat, especially when there are other alternatives, perhaps not as efficient but with less political cost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PhantomSgt
Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 972
Location: GUAM, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 8:01 pm Post subject: Would have come in handy |
|
|
| WilliamShipley wrote: | | Realistically, though, under what circumstances would we actually use a nuclear weapon as a bunker buster? Even if it was a small weapon with similar yield to conventional, the fuss raised would be so much that no one would be willing to take the heat, especially when there are other alternatives, perhaps not as efficient but with less political cost. |
A weapon like the one discussed would have helped immensely in Afghanistan when we faced miles of tunnels deep in the mountains.
Drop one of these highly accurate, deep penetrating low yield nukes into one of those tunnels and “shake and bake” terrorists in their holes.
Sometimes just having a weapon in your gun belt is enough to deter someone from taking a certain action. Remember the “Cold War’ when just having them was a deterrent to Soviet Global Expansionism. Today we face Radical Islamic Expansionism.
_________________
Retired AF E-8
Independent that leans right of center. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WilliamShipley
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 28 Aug 2004
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| My point was not that it wouldn't be useful, just that it wouldn't be used. If it had been available, I am absolutely certain that we wouldn't have used it if Afghanistan. Can't you just imagine what the MSM would do if we did!? There are still reasons for having a nuclear deterrent, of course, but the attitude toward nuclear weapons is such that we can't use 'utility' nukes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
