BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


U.S. eyes 'usable' nuclear bombs

 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
19:41 / 13.02.03
More for the Good News pile:

U.S. eyes 'usable' nuclear bombs:

After narrowly failing last year, Republicans in Congress are poised to attempt the repeal of a law that prohibits the development of smaller, more "usable" nuclear bombs -- a decade-old cornerstone of America's cautious post- Cold War weapons policy.

[...]

The move, which could come as early as this congressional session, also comes against a backdrop of a potential war with Iraq in which the Bush administration has not ruled out the use of small-scale nuclear arms
 
 
Baz Auckland
20:32 / 13.02.03

Everytime I hear this stuff I want to scream "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A USABLE NUCLEAR BOMB". Apparently I may be wrong.

Also fun news: US Plans For Use of Gas in Iraq

Top US military planners are preparing for the US to use incapacitating biochemical weapons in an invasion of Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, revealed the plans in February 5th testimony before the US House Armed Services Committee. This is the first official US acknowledgement that it may use (bio)chemical weapons its crusade to rid other countries of such weapons. The Sunshine Project and other nonprofits have warned since late 2001 that the "War on Terrorism" may result the United States using prohibited biological and chemical armaments, thereby violating the same treaties it purports to defend.

Rumsfeld stated that plans are being made for multiple applications, including use of gas or aerosols on unarmed Iraqi civilians, in caves, and on prisoners. Rumsfeld reiterated the confusing, typical US official language about so-called "non-lethal" biochemical weapons, which is at odds with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
 
 
Brigade du jour
21:41 / 13.02.03
Jesus, it's like Reagan without the reticence!
 
 
Slim
03:35 / 14.02.03
First liberals complain about a nuclear stockpile and then they complain when the government tries to get rid of it. Bunch of whiners!

Kidding, of course. I guess everyone will be able to see the irony of the U.S. using chemical weapons on Iraq except for the people in charge of using them.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
10:22 / 14.02.03
I'm actually on the verge of giving up hope now. I actually heard a thing on the radio the other day (sorry, I can't provide a link or anything, because I was half-asleep, but I swear I heard it) where Bush managed to say "Iranian people- uh- Iraqi people". Is North Korea actually next? Iran's in there somewhere (continuity be damned).
France and Germany are now on the "bad" list- sooner or later, that's gonna connect with the "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" idea. (btw... someone remind me again why Turkey is a state that needs protecting, rather than one that needs its human rights abuses sorted out?)

And Afghanistan? Yeah, everyone's life there just fucking rocks now, doesn't it?

"Usable" nukes.

Fuck.

I think our whole "going to hell in a handbasket" thing has forgotten the important "handbasket" element.

It's been nice knowing you all.

(Sorry. I'm sure I'll be more optimistic after the march tomorrow. Right now it's just bad news, bad news, bad news.)
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
12:44 / 14.02.03
I think that America using Chem/Bio weapons on Iraq is pretty much out of the question (apart from maybe crop-spraying incapacitating chemicals, the sort you'd use to quell a riot) The public relations aspect would kill the Bush government, any Joe Twelvepack in Ohio would be able to see the hypocrasy and vote Democrat in two years time, that, or use their constitutionally defined right to displace government when it becomes destructive to ideals of freedom etc.
As for nukes? They're a grey area as long as the yeild isn't higher than Hiroshima sized, so these micro-nukes could potentially be used, providing they were 'clean'.
Of course, anything can and will happen, so don't take the above as gospel.
 
 
Ray Fawkes
13:30 / 14.02.03
(btw... someone remind me again why Turkey is a state that needs protecting, rather than one that needs its human rights abuses sorted out?)

Chairman, it's this kind of statement that typically draws eye-rolling from anyone who isn't firmly entrenched in left-leaning utopianism. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't support the threat of force (or use of force) to make Turkey sort out its human rights abuses. I'm also pretty sure you wouldn't be too happy about it if conflict spilled over into Turkey from Iraq, harming people who aren't directly involved. So...what are you suggesting here? That the UN refuse to offer defense assistance and make a diplomatic request the Turkey improve its human rights policies?

On topic: The development of smaller nuclear weapons is more than likely to terrify and alienate the rest of the world, which is unfortunately what the current American administration seems to want. I can only hope that even they aren't depraved enough to actually consider using them, as opposed to just displaying them as deterrents...but who knows? This administration has just over a year left in office - if we're lucky, America will get worried enough to replace it.
 
 
Nematode
11:54 / 17.02.03
THe gas thing: As far aas I know the Americans were involved in the shelling of the Iranians by Iraq during that war. This involvement goes way beyond just selling them the stuff. Apparently they were there on the battle field helping the Iraqis land the shells in the right place so......well lets just say they've lost their virginity on this one.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
10:22 / 19.02.03
Guardian: US plan for new nuclear arsenal:

The panel would also contemplate the "requirements for low-yield weapons, EPWs [earth-penetrating weapons], enhanced radiation weapons, agent defeat weapons".

This is the menu of weapons being actively considered by the Pentagon. Low-yield means tactical warheads of less than a kiloton, "mini-nukes", which advocates of the new arsenal say represent a far more effective deterrent than the existing huge weapons, because they are more "usable".

Earth-penetrating weapons are "bunker-busters", which would break through the surface of the earth before detonating. US weapons scientists believe they could be used as "agent defeat weapons" used to destroy chemical or biological weapons stored underground. The designers are also looking at low-yield neutron bombs or "enhanced radiation weapons", which could destroy chemical or biological weapons in surface warehouses.

According to the leaked document, the "future arsenal panel" in Omaha would also ask the pivotal question: "What forms of testing will these new designs require?"

The Bush administration has been working to reduce the amount of warning the test sites in the western US desert would need to be reactivated after 10 years lying dormant.


So we're still all going to die, only for most people it'll be through low-level radiation contamination of the environment rather than in a huge nuclear holocaust.

Does anyone know if these are the same kind of thing as that terrifying 'Death Ray' idea - the one which microwaves things (weapons installations, people)?
 
 
Magic Mutley
13:34 / 19.02.03
Neutron bombs are different to the microwave stuff. They're a kind of nuclear bomb designed to produce a much smaller explosion & less contamination than usual, but they release a massive burst of high energy neutrons. These can penetrate concrete, armour, etc, and have a lethal range far greater than the blast area. The idea is to kill lots of people and leave the infrastructure - buildings, tanks, & cars unharmed.
 
 
Quantum
14:25 / 19.02.03
call me a left leaning utopianist, but I'm with Chairman on Turkey. Did you know they are insisting on sending 40,000 troops into Kurdistan to match the US contingent? The Kurds mostly see the US as liberators, but the Turks as invaders (due to their appalling human rights record, ethnic cleansing etc) Any Kurds on the board?
I think that America using Chem/Bio weapons on Iraq is pretty much out of the question (phex) I think you're wrong- lets see in March when the war starts.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:55 / 19.02.03
Chairman, it's this kind of statement that typically draws eye-rolling from anyone who isn't firmly entrenched in left-leaning utopianism. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't support the threat of force (or use of force) to make Turkey sort out its human rights abuses. I'm also pretty sure you wouldn't be too happy about it if conflict spilled over into Turkey from Iraq, harming people who aren't directly involved. So...what are you suggesting here? That the UN refuse to offer defense assistance and make a diplomatic request the Turkey improve its human rights policies?

Ray, surely the point is that the likes of Tony Blair use the plight of the Kurds in Iraq as *moral* justification for a war which will in all likelihood make matters much worse for them, due to the massive influx of invading Turkish forces mentioned above. It is not utopianism to be sickened by the hypocrisy whereby the Anglosphere's strategic allies are rewarded for their support with a blind eye or even active support for their human rights abuses, and yet similar abuses are a souce of great moral outrage and a supposed motive for intervention when committed by 'rogue states'.
 
 
Guy Parsons
15:59 / 24.02.03
America doesn't care if everyone hates them, as long as everyone is also shit scared of them. It's a sacrifice they're clearly willing to make.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
11:27 / 25.02.03
I can't provide proof for this at the moment but apparently Turkey's price for co-operation is that no Kurds get any sort of power post-Saddam in Iraq, be it proportional representation or a homeland in the north of Iraq.

If this turns out to be true I think that helpfully completely bollixes any humanitarian argument that Blair and Bush use does it not?
"We're doing this for the people of Iraq < fixed grin, arm gesture > but some of the people of Iraq are more people of Iraq than others "
 
 
Baz Auckland
12:55 / 25.02.03
The humanitarian argument sort of died anyways when they decided to launch 800 cruise missiles in the first 48 hours of the war.

The presence of US troops in the north may at least prevent Turkey from doing a pre-emptive strike against Iraq's Kurds or something equally horrible?
 
  
Add Your Reply