Our Hidden WMD Program(usa)

[ahsanraza81]

http://www.pakalertpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/nukes.gif

Our Hidden WMD Program

Why u.s is spending so much on nuclear weapons.

he budget is busted; American soldiers need more armor; they're running out of supplies. Yet the Department of Energy is spending an astonishing $6.5 billion on nuclear weapons this year, and President Bush is requesting $6.8 billion more for next year and a total of $30 billion over the following four years. This does not include his much-cherished missile-defense program, by the way. This is simply for the maintenance, modernization, development, and production of nuclear bombs and warheads.

Measured in "real dollars" (that is, adjusting for inflation), this year's spending on nuclear activities is equal to what Ronald Reagan spent at the height of the U.S.-Soviet standoff. It exceeds by over 50 percent the average annual sum ($4.2 billion) that the United States spent—again, in real dollars—throughout the four and a half decades of the Cold War.

There is no nuclear arms race going on now. The world no longer offers many suitable nuclear targets. President Bush is trying to persuade other nations—especially "rogue regimes"—to forgo their nuclear ambitions. Yet he is shoveling money to U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories as if the Soviet Union still existed and the Cold War still raged.

These are the findings of a virtually unnoticed report written by weapons analyst Christopher Paine, based on data from official budget documents, and released earlier this month by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The report raises anew a question that always springs to mind after a close look at the U.S. military budget: What the hell is going on here? Specifically: Do we really need to be spending this kind of money on nuclear weapons? What role do nuclear weapons play in 21st-century military policy? How many weapons do we need, to deter what sort of attack or to hit what sorts of targets, with what level of confidence, for what strategic and tactical purposes?

These are questions that haven't been seriously addressed in this country for 30 years. It may be time for a new look.

Ten years ago, spending on nuclear activities amounted to $3.4 billion, half of today's sum. In President Clinton's last budget, it totaled $5.2 billion, still one-third less than this year's. (All figures are adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2004 dollars.) Have new threats emerged that can be handled only by a vast expansion or improvement of the U.S. nuclear arsenal? Has our nuclear stockpile deteriorated by a startling degree? There's no evidence that either is the case.

Yet Paine quotes a statement from the National Nuclear Security Administration—the quasi-independent agency of the Energy Department that's in charge of the atomic stockpile—declaring, as its goal, "to revitalize the nuclear weapons manufacturing infrastructure." Its guidance on this point is the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review of December 2001, which stated that U.S. strategic nuclear forces must provide "a range of options" not merely to deter but "to defeat any aggressor."

The one aspect of this reorientation that's attracted some attention is the development of a "robust nuclear earth-penetrator" (RNEP)—a warhead that can burrow deep into the earth before exploding, in order to destroy underground bunkers. The U.S. Air Force currently has some non-nuclear earth-penetrators, but they can't burrow deeply enough or explode powerfully enough to destroy some known bunkers. There's a legitimate debate over whether we would need to destroy such bunkers or whether it would be good enough to disable them—a feat that the conventional bunker-busters could accomplish. There's a broader question still over whether an American president really would, or should, be the first to fire nuclear weapons in wartime, no matter how tempting the tactical advantage.

The point here, however, is that this new nuclear weapon is fast becoming a reality.

As chronicled in a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, when Bush started the RNEP program two years ago, it was labeled as strictly a research project. Its budget was a mere $6.1 million in Fiscal Year 2003 and $7.1 million for FY 04. Now, all of a sudden, the administration has posted a five-year plan for the program amounting, from FY 2005-09, to $485 million. The FY05 budget alone earmarks $27.5 million to begin "development ground tests" on "candidate weapon designs." This isn't research; it's a real weapon in the works.

Paine's report cites other startlers that have eluded all notice outside the cognoscenti. For instance, the Energy Department is building a massive $4 billion-$6 billion proton accelerator in order to produce more tritium, the heavy hydrogen isotope that boosts the explosive yield of a nuclear weapon. (Tritium is the hydrogen that makes a hydrogen bomb.) Tritium does decay; eventually, it will have to be refurbished to ensure that, say, a 100-kiloton bomb really explodes with 100 kilotons of force. But Paine calculates that the current U.S. stockpile doesn't require any new tritium until at least 2012. If the stockpile is reduced to the level required under the terms of the most recent strategic arms treaty, none is needed until 2022.

Similar questions are raised about the Energy Department's plans to spend billions on new plutonium pits, high-energy fusion lasers, and supercomputer systems.

There is some debate within the administration over such matters, but it's a peculiar debate. For instance, some Pentagon officials favor spending $2 billion over the next five years to do a complete makeover on the W-76 warhead inside the U.S. Navy's Trident I missile—giving it an option to explode on the surface, improving its accuracy so it could blow up a blast-hardened missile silo, and so forth. The Trident I is an old missile; it's scheduled to be warehoused in the next few years. But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has advocated "modernizing" even the "reserve stockpile" of nukes. Opposing this view, many Energy Department officials want to spend less money on these "legacy" weapons and invest it instead on a new generation of smaller, more agile nukes.

The official inside debate, in other words, is whether to build new nuclear weapons that are more usable in modern warfare or whether to do that and make the old nuclear weapons more usable, too. A broader debate—over whether to go down this twisted road generally—has not yet begun.

 

[SR 71 Blackbird]

Old news.Funds are also required for maintaining & decommissioning nuclear weapons.

 

[axisofevil]

As soon as I read Bush..... bye bye

 

[Solomon2]

...The following is something that happened to me in 1977 during one of my school's trans-Atlantic training cruises aboard New York Maritime College Training Ship, the Empire State. On that cruise, I discovered America's most lethal and most secret weapons of mass destruction. My only regret is that I never wrote a letter to inform the IRS or the outgoing director of America's Central Intelligence Agency, George W. H. Bush who left the agency in February 1977 and became US president on Jan. 20, 1989. I could have saved the world hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars...

Our training ship docked at a European port next to a Soviet ship. The Soviet flag attracted our attention. Ships are like embassies. When you are aboard a ship, then you are in the ship's country. At that time (late 70s) Saudi Arabia had no diplomatic relations with any communist country, let alone the Soviet Union. I wanted to see the Soviet ship and the feeling of being in a communist territory.

One American cadet and I went to the gangway of the Soviet ship and asked permission to look around, and the Soviet guard turned down the American cadet, but noticed that I wasn't an American and asked about my nationality. I told him I was from Saudi Arabia. The guard's English was poor and he thought I said Syria Arabia which was a Soviet ally. And I was given a grand tour. In theory, I think I was the first Saudi military man to set a foot on a Soviet soil.

I was taken to the wardroom. I thought I would be given a propaganda lecture about Stalin and Lenin. Instead I saw the crew dancing to an American song called Johnny B. Goode by Chuck Berry. link

 

[HROBOS]

Let's see, why create atomic weapons.

1. Establishment of an absolute advantage.
There are three main types of weapons of mass destruction.
We consider in the application.

a) Bacteriological. The most ancient weapon of mass destruction. It is difficult to determine the time when people thought of using the epidemic for their own purposes. However, the epidemic since ancient times influenced (directly or indirectly) the actions of entire armies. Epidemic helped conquer a new light a small detachment of invaders (the Incas, Aztecs and other peoples in most of the die from lack of immunity to diseases brought in). Later (already more meaningful) infected with smallpox blankets used by the British for the destruction of the Indians. What was even later, you're better than me tell Koreans and Vietnamese. There were cases of the epidemic was stopped or restricted the promotion of the conquerors (malaria, Tse-tse fly vector of sleeping sickness, etc.).

These are just some examples.
Is there a danger of the use of bacteriological weapons at the moment?
Are you sure that they do not feel at the moment?
In several European countries at the moment people are dying from an unknown illness. This virus is immune to modern antibiotics. Pork, chicken flu. A number of viruses which, like yo-the-box suddenly appeared and disappeared.
Options and issues.

1) One or more pharmaceutical companies have decided to earn extra money in the production of specialized medicine?

2) Who is experiencing a new bacteriological weapons?

3) Maybe people just overdid it with the genetic modification of plant and animal food products? When we mix a bulldog with a rhinoceros trying to change the genome, we know what bacteriological monster can be born?


Whatever the answer was clear only one. Bacteriological weapon like a boomerang. In what direction you would not have thrown it always comes back to you. When? It's only a matter of time. Biological weapons is currently the most deadly.

b) Chemical weapons.

Real horror of the First World War. One word - "Gaza" could cause a panic in the whole military units. However, in the application revealed certain weaknesses.
Dependence on wind direction, the use of protective equipment, etc. The use of lethal chemical weapons has been the lot of punishers and terrorists. Not lethal chemical agents armed with police fully justified.

&#1089 Nuclear weapons.

The most effective and relatively safe weapons of mass destruction (a measure of its stability).
Why it was created, is created and will be created? This is the most interesting question.

1. The most obvious answer. Weapons attack. Destruction of various objects and forces of the enemy. For these purposes, and created the first generation of nuclear weapons.

2. Instrument of pressure and absolute advantages. A striking example of the United States after the atomic bombing of Japanese cities. Japanese navy and air force were destroyed by the United States. The main force of Japanese on the continent - the Kwantung Army. Was destroyed by Soviet troops. Japan has been a complete blockade. Japan was quite possible to send the stone age. Therefore, the surrender of Japan could be achieved virtually without bloodshed by the Allies. Therefore, the destruction was just a political move. With the same success (or even more) can be dropped atomic bombs on Berlin. Do not have time? Nuclear weapons was a key moment in the Korean War. This made the Soviet Union to refrain from direct involvement in the war (which ultimately led to the partition of Korea).

3. Protective factor.
An example may serve as Libya and North Korea. Libya, Iraq, Serbia, and so forth can be bombed. Do not you know that North Korea is ready to atomic charges? Reveal a terrible secret, the Americans also do not know. Therefore, afraid to enter into armed conflict.

At present nuclear arsenal repeatedly covers all the needs of the United States.
Why are spending to develop new weapons? Trite answer to the obscene - the money. Number of specialized companies wanted to earn extra money on new orders. Good or bad? For U.S. taxpayers is bad. For the rest of the world well. Current U.S. and Russian arsenals allow several times to destroy all life on earth. What's the difference how many times will destroy the world. Die each still only once. Money-printing machine is good. However, the money supply is not unlimited. Need to save on Conventional Weapons.