US Should Cancel Plutonium Plant, Say Scientists 214
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Rachel Oswald reports that the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent science advocacy organization, says that the United States should cancel plans to build a multi-billion dollar plutonium research facility in New Mexico and criticizes Obama administration plans for nuclear facilities and weapons. They argue that the plans to build new fissile-material handling plants are unnecessarily ambitious given the expected future downward trajectory of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The proposed Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement plant (CMRR) building at Los Alamos would replace a Cold War-era site at a cost of $6 billion. It is intended to assist in ensuring new and existing plutonium pits are in working order absent a return by the country to nuclear-weapons testing. The 81-page UCS report, 'Making Smart Security Choices,' (PDF) says if the U.S. carries out limited reductions of its nuclear arsenal over the next-quarter century — as President Obama has said he would like to do — current facilities at Los Alamos can produce sufficient plutonium cores to maintain the warhead stockpile. The CMRR complex is designed to have the capacity to produce between 50 and 80 plutonium pits annually even though no more than 50 cores are needed yearly and Los Alamos currently has that production capability, says report co-author Lisbeth Gronlund. 'The idea that you would need to produce up to 80 [cores] is not warranted,' says Gronlund. 'We think it's time just to cancel the whole thing.'"
China and Russia continue to modernize.... (Score:5, Insightful)
.... while the US, UK, and France haven't fielded new warheads or delivery systems since the 90s. Russia has deployed new ICBMs, a whole new class of SSBN, she just tested an "ICBM" that may well be a IRBM in disguise (running afoul of the INF in the process), and nobody is quite sure what China is up to with her nuclear arsenal. The latter bit is particularly troubling, at least with the Russians there's a diplomatic framework in place for each side to verify what the other has. The size of China's arsenal and her deployed delivery systems is a huge geopolitical question mark.
The West needs to maintain a credible deterrence force; this means modern warheads and delivery systems. At the same time, we really ought to be making an effort to bring China into a disarmament and verification diplomatic framework, the kind we've had with the Russians for decades. It baffles me that none of our leaders talk about China when discussing nuclear weapons policy.
Re:China and Russia continue to modernize.... (Score:5, Informative)
The USAF test-fired one or more missiles recently, it caused a delay for the SpaceX Falcon launch from Vandenberg last month. The missiles in stock will do the job if called upon. There doesn't seem to be any real necessity for a brand-new missile to replace the existing fleet other than as the existing hardware ages out. Any new models would have the same basic capabilities as the older Minuteman III designs so other than fitting them with larger tailfins and spending a lot of money with defence contractors why bother?
The US has very good warheads; over half of all nuclear weapons tests since 1945 have been carried out by the US and there really isn't much room for improvement or a real need to develop new warhead designs. The focus is on maintaining the existing arsenal in a working condition which is what the new Pu facility mentioned in the article is intended to do from what I understand.
As for China its long-range missiles are 1970s technology, liquid-fuelled multistage designs which are cumbersome and vulnerable to pre-emptive attack. They have no SSBN capabilities despite spending a lot of money and effort in trying to develop that capability and they have no long-range bomber force either. China probably has about the same number of nuclear weapons as France or Britain, less than a tenth of the arsenal the US or Russia hold. Bringing them into a START process would be pointless - what counterbalancing incentive could the US offer to the Chinese to get them to reduce their current holdings from 250 warheads down to, say, 100? The US and Russia can negotiate as equals as they have similar stockpiles, the Chinese are a second-rate nuclear force in that regard.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why confine the conversation to ICBMs? They are the least destabilizing nuclear weapons delivery system. China's growing stockpile of short and intermediate range missiles are far more worrisome. They directly threaten our friends in Asia (Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, Singapore, etc.), the Russians, and even American soil (Guam and the Marianas)
Russia has been making rumblings for a few years now about withdrawing from the INF treaty. A lot of analysts blame the US Missile Defense progr
Re:China and Russia continue to modernize.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Ohios and their replacements are a platform, not a missile or a warhead. The new SSBNs will carry a Trident derivative, probably a slightly tweaked version of the D5 (as will the postulated replacement for the British SSBNs) and the warheads will be the same designs with the same yield and functionality as currently deployed because there is nothing to be gained in spending 50 billion dollars to develop and produce missiles and warheads that would be only fractionally better than what they replace.
A the moment the Chinese have no usable SSBNs never mind the small number (three minimum, one on patrol, one working up, one being refitted and if possible one spare above that) needed to maintain a credible second-strike worldwide retaliatory capability all the other members of the Big Five possess.
As for the capabilities of missile systems the Chinese see India and Russia as their most likely nuclear foes in any future shooting war; unlike the insular and isolated US such exchanges can and probably would be conducted with IRBMs and nuclear-capable cruise missiles hence their interest in developing such weapons and the lesser regard they have for ICBMs and SSBNs.
None of the other Big Five nations or the adjunct non-NPT nations with proven nuclear weapons (Israel, India and Pakistan) allow outside inspection and verification of their warhead stocks; the START deal is purely between the two 800-lb gorillas in the nuclear destruction biz. Just because China is big doesn't mean it's on the same scale as the US and Russia; I'd worry more about India's nuclear weapons stocks as they face an existential threat from their nuclear rivals, Pakistan.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd worry more about India's nuclear weapons stocks as they face an existential threat from their nuclear rivals, Pakistan and China.
Fixed it for you. Recall that India developed its first nuclear bomb in response to the Chinese not the Pakistanis. And that India also shares a common border with China.
A the moment the Chinese have no usable SSBNs never mind the small number (three minimum, one on patrol, one working up, one being refitted and if possible one spare above that) needed to maintain a credible second-strike worldwide retaliatory capability all the other members of the Big Five possess.
"At the moment." It's clear that China is working hard to change this and that they have the resources to do so. My view is that China will be a true superpower inside of 50 years and when it does, it will have a considerable nuclear capability of some sort. How much and the nature of the delivery systems will depend on who's in charge the
Re: (Score:2)
I did mention that China and India have a shared border (and with Kashmir too, of course). However they are not shooting at each other at the moment which is not the case with India and Pakistan over Kashmir. I sometimes claim the first real nuclear war was between India and Pakistan in 1998 but it was carried out underground and nobody was killed, when both countries tested several devices with a few days of each other to prove their nuclear capabilities.
I'm not sure that China will become a military and n
Re: (Score:3)
Whatever SSBN platform is built it will be designed around the venerable Trident D5, not a new missile and that D5 will carry the same sort of warhead that the current Ohios carry. Same with the British deterrent where the warheads are not being upgraded but simply maintained. I'm not sure what the French are doing with their own boomers.
As for the Minuteman being outclassed by modern Russian ICBMs, so what if that's true? The Minuteman III is a perfectly capable launch vehicle today and tomorrow. What woul
Re: (Score:2)
I thought I had explained what I think about the China situation, sorry about that.
China has about the same number of nuclear weapons (200 - 300) as Britain, France, India, Pakistan and Israel which together are less than half the current US or Russian stockpiles in total. Why should China and only China be a party to a START Lite process, what would the US (and Russia too presumably) give up in trade for them to do so? I could envisage a START Lite treaty between China, India and Pakistan with mutual inspe
Re: (Score:2)
The Ohios need to be replaced. The hulls can only be used for so long. The oldest of them is over 30 years old already. Any replacement will need to be done using modern manufacturing processes and techniques. So there is talk about modifying the more modern Virginia submarine class to suit that role.
IMO the French are the ones who have improved their submarine and SLBM technology more quickly. Technology which they may be sharing in the recent future with Brazil. While Brazil does not have any history of c
Re: (Score:2)
Neither the U.S. nor Russia has been able to defeat a bunch of desert-dwellers with rifles during either country's sustained military campaigns.
Such asymmetric warfare would the the last thing to overcome, waged likely better by standard U.S. citizens than the Taliban, -if- they survived all the ICBM's, sub-launched missiles, stealth and conventional bombers, Army, and Marines--to name a few.
Engaging in such a thing would only be a catastrophically foolish thing for any country to attempt, and they know it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are ignoring a purpose of the ICMB and sub launched missiles. You are correct that both Russia and the US has failed to defeat a bunch of desert-dwellers with rifles during either country's sustained military campaigns. But while that is called war, it pales in comparison to wars we traditionally waged like WWI and WWII and before.
We have had a hard time in any war in which we didn't go all out on and instead attempted to protect the populous or portions of an area. But because of ICBMs and the
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong in several counts. Topol-M and several other more recent designs are built specifically with counter-measures against ABM systems which cannot be easily retrofitted into Minuteman III. Remember the spirals over Norway? Not to mention that Minuteman III is silo based and hence highly vulnerable to a preemptive attack while Topol-M is road mobile.
IMO the main deterrent the US has today is Trident. Minuteman is mainly useful as a deterrent against states which have embryonic or non-existent missi
Re: (Score:2)
The Topol-M missile has a shorter range than the Minuteman III and the road-mobile Topol-M version is believed to be less capable than the siloed version as well as being obviously more vulnerable to nuclear airbursts compared to the silo-protected base Topol-M and Minuteman III. The extra maneuverability functions designed to avoid threatened US ABM deployments eats into payload which isn't a problem for the Minuteman III mission of course. Most of the other currently deployed Russian ICBMs like the SS-N-1
Re: (Score:2)
Russia has a larger landmass than the US so their missiles do not need to have the same range to achieve global coverage. Yes the Russians still have large amounts of ancient liquid fueled rockets in silos but those are proposed to be replaced with the RS-24 Yars missile which is operational and in production since 2010. The US did have a plan for the road mobile Midgetman missile at one point in the 1980s but it was canceled for budgetary reasons.
With silos the only questions are how accurate and how big i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
China's arsenal is small, that's why it isn't discussed much. You confuse warheads and delivery systems. What new warheads are there? What difference would a "new" warhead design make? none, that's what. We don't need to make any new warheads, we have plenty and they are maintained.
What a complete crock of shit (Score:2)
Are you really serious??? So because China a Russia are blowing money and resources on making new nukes, the US had better do it too?
For fucks sake man, the US has near-as-makes-no-difference 8000 nuclear weapons. Even if they were the original style we dropped on Japan, who fucking cares???
It is a nuke and there are 8000 tries to get somewhat near a target.
No, I am sure you are right. China will say, Hey Russia let's attack the US with nukes because they have only 8000 bombs from the 90's.
Brainwashed much?
Re:China and Russia continue to modernize.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Israel is a regional player with limited abilities to upend the global geopolitical balance that has existed since the 80s. Geography and population will ensure that this is always the case. Not so with China; Russia's current expenditures on WMDs and rumblings about leaving the INF are driven in part by questions about China's intentions and the scope of her nuclear capability. Do you see Russia withdrawing from decades old arms control treaties as a result of anything that happening in Tel Aviv? Not likely.....
China needs to be brought into a modern arms control framework, preferably before a three sided Cold War breaks out. We don't need to "demand" it of her; it's simply a matter of geopolitical carrot and stick, the same as happened with the Soviet Union in the 70s and 80. The problem is that the existing framework either ignores China, or regards her as a smaller power, in the same league as the UK and France. She's not held to the same standards of transparency as the United States or Russia, and that really ought to worry the hell out of everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone in the UN Security Council should have to enter into such a verification agreement. Simple as that.
Re: (Score:2)
There are several permanent members who couldn't be dismissed if they didn't enter a verification agreement or left one. These are China, France, Russia, the US and the UK.
This is by charter so if you ignore it and throw one out or impose obligations, you risk destroying the charter and hence any meaningful purpose of the security council.
I agree with your sentiment. It just isn't that simple.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you just wake up from a twenty year nap? China's carrier, which is an upgraded version of the Soviet Kuznetsov class weighing in at around 65k tons, is more capable than either France's tiny Charles de Gaulle (40k tons) or the UK's even tinier Illustrious (20k tons), which doesn't even have an air wing.
China has alread laid the keel of a second carrier and intends to build a third. Both of the second two carriers will be in the 100k ton range and will include CATOBAR systems, meaning they can maintai
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
unlike Israel? what?
Why do you think Iran is trying to get nukes in the first place?
More intimidation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think Iran is trying to get nukes in the first place?
Power play for the Middle East. Same reason that Iraq wanted them in the 80s and should have made sure they had them before they invaded Kuwait.
Re: (Score:2)
It is exactly from past experiences. Iran has seen Israel defeat enemies many times larger then itself without using anything as advanced as nuclear bombs. In one war, I forget which, most of Israel's heavy armaments were actually captured from the enemies coming after them.
Iran has stated several times it wants Israel wiped off the map. They know it won't happen as long as Israel possesses nukes and they don't. Whether that was just political grandstanding or a real intention is beside the point. People wi
Re: (Score:2)
Iran and Israel were allies prior to the Islamic revolution in Iran. It was Iran, newly governed by Islamic extremists, that declared Israel to be an enemy that they want to destroy.
Re: (Score:2)
It is exactly from past experiences. Iran has seen Israel defeat enemies many times larger then itself without using anything as advanced as nuclear bombs.
Iran has never been at war with Israel except by proxy, meddling in the affairs of Lebanon. I bet without that particular entanglement, Israel wouldn't have bothered to meddle with Iran's nuclear program.
Re: (Score:2)
Iran has claimed it wanted to wipe Israel off the map. However, the past experience I mentioned wasn't with Iran and Israel, it was Iran watching Israel with other countries in the area and how Israel kicked ass.
Israel and Iran were friendly until the Islamic revolution in Iran. They didn't become enemies so to say until Iran announced it wanted to eliminate Israel and the Jews from the world. When the leaders, or the figure head for the leaders of a nation say they want to erase your existence, meddling wi
Re: (Score:2)
"if Iran gets nukes" - you are so fucking naive.
I take it you have an opinion on the matter? Mind sharing it? As I understand it, they're trying to get nuclear weapons and they haven't succeeded yet. So the "if" applies. Nothing "naive" about that.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, Turkey might as a future member of the EU and ally of the US count on a nuclear reprisal from either EU members or the US. Or it might have to depend on its own arsenal of nuclear weapons due to the unreliability of these all
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the US is in no position to demand anything from China.
We don't have to "demand", we can negotiate instead. Arms reductions benefit everyone. By building up our arsenals were are behaving like we are in a prisoner's dilemma [wikipedia.org]. But the prisoner's dilemma should only apply when the prisoners are separated, and cannot negotiate an agreement to their mutual benefit. We are under no such constraints.
We are using China's buildup to justify our own buildup, and they are then using our buildup to justify theirs. That benefits no one outsite the MICs [wikipedia.org] (which both coun
Re: (Score:2)
Why should negotiation matter? It's a multiple-choice question with only one that could be considered mutually beneficial. The important thing is whether the prisoners trust each to not betray the other. And, thanks to realpolitiks, that trust does not exist between nations, thus bad outcomes prevail.
Not just for weapons (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not just for weapons (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong isotope. Nukes need Pu-239, RTGs use Pu-238, and the manufacturing processes are different.
Re:Not just for weapons (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To pretend to be legit, Iran should start a deep space program. Then use the Pu-239 method to get their "desired" Pu-238.
Skip uranium enrichment and go right for plutonium!
Re: (Score:2)
Mine pluto!
Re: (Score:2)
And time machines, think of the jiggawatts these cores could produce! Great Scott!
I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That would be the US's cyber weapons platform. If any other countries try to build a nuclear weapons stockpile, they end up having to shut down their facilities due to all the viruses. This is one of the few cases in which weakening the other side really is a more viable and ecological strategy than building up your own strength.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes this "unnecessarily" ambitious rather than "necessarily" ambitious? Overwhelming nuclear force by a foe remains a means of defeating a MAD strategy. You can't counter that unless you have the capability to expand your own nuclear force in response.
Right, and we already have that capability. Thus, the new facility is unnecessary.
As an aside, we are signatories of the NPT [wikipedia.org]. We can hardly go around beating other countries over head for violating the treaty when we ourselves are violating our obligations under it. If we don't want new nuclear weapons being developed by previously non-nuclear nations, or nuclear nations giving nukes to others, it behooves us to live up to our obligations under the same treaty to reduce our own nuclear arsenal. If we're
Re: (Score:2)
If we're not planning on reducing our arsenal anymore, then we're already in violation of the treaty, so we might as well stop complaining when our enemies start developing their own weapons.
Why is that implied? The problem here is that if you do have to expand your nuclear force for purpose of survival MAD-wise, whether in violation of the treaty or not, then you need to have some capability in place to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no means of defeating a MAD strategy. Your enemy can only get so dead, and the same goes with you.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no means of defeating a MAD strategy. Your enemy can only get so dead, and the same goes with you.
The problem with that assertion is that even a full blown nuclear war doesn't get you dead enough. The USSR thought there was considerable advantage to the strategy I mentioned, resulting in their strategy of building up nuclear forces throughout the 70s and early 80s. If the US hadn't countered by building up its own nuclear forces, then things might have gotten a lot hairier in the late 80s.
A foe knowing that the US has the potential in place to rebuild a large nuclear force in a short span of time is
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone who has studied the history of intelligence in the arms race would know that initial reports on Soviet capabilities were talked up so the departments could get budget.
So you wouldn't be interested to know that CIA estimates of USSR nuclear forces fell short throughout the 70s? That's not much of a "talk up".
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean by "fell short?" They never fell short of being able to deliver an amount of damage on the USA that US leaders could contemplate risking by attacking the USSR directly.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you were right, which you aren't, no country has sufficient infrastructure to sustain a direct attack on the US.
Today. One doesn't prepare for the future by assuming it'll be the same as today.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the most modern threats are asymmetrical as no state based actor would threaten the US openly. The US is the only country that has been doing that, preemptively. Any tactical threat to the US can only be conducted indirectly and the only ones capable of conducting a strategic attack on the US aren't interested in doing it because, unlike the US, they don't have the economic ability to sustain it.
Even if you were right, which you aren't, no country has sufficient infrastructure to sustain a direct attack on the US. Nine eleven was example of an indirect attack
that resulted in vast amounts of money being spent for no use, failure in Iraq, complete failure in Afghanistan. What the US lost was proof enough of how successful a indirect attack will be in the future as more US values are sacrificed to combat it. Either way, you still lose.
So go ahead, spend 6 billion on your obsolete methods of war - it's what your enemies want you to do anyway.
Most modern threats are asymmetric only because the USA has overwhelming military power. Conventional threats (i.e. other countries that would like to take territory that we control) still exist and presumably always will. So our methods of war aren't obsolete; they're just misapplied. When fighting small time, international non-state actors, the effective methods are those used to get Osama bin Laden and a number of other al-Qaeda leaders: intelligence work that looks a lot like police work, overt and c
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
If we simply stopped with the disarming there would be little need for expensive new technology
Nuclear materials have a half-life.... you can't take an unmaintained plutonium pit from the 1980s and expect it to function as designed thirty years later. Contamination from decay products will yield unpredictable results, ranging from a fissile (weapon fails to reach nuclear yield) to a significant increase in power (Castle Bravo is a good example)
The only way to control for this is to conduct weapons testing (a geopolitical non-starter) or to continue to produce new fissile materials with known quantities. Computer modeling can offset the need for testing to a certain extent but at the end of the day the only way to be certain that a weapon will work as designed is to test it and/or modernize the materials contained therein.
Re: (Score:3)
"fissile" = capable of undergoing fission.
"fizzle" = didn't go boom when we tried to make it undergo fission.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you meant "fizzle."
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to control for this is to conduct weapons testing (a geopolitical non-starter) or to continue to produce new fissile materials with known quantities.
How about underground testing on the moon? (A place outside geopolitical boundaries, free from environmental concerns, and not governed by any nation on earth)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, feeding a troll here, but this tired misinformation's still making the rounds, and someone's gotta fight it, so here goes...
Don't forget that plutonium 239 has a half life of over 24,000 years and is lethal in minute quantities at only brief exposure time.
Uh, no. It's not. [lbl.gov]
Remember, kids, long half-life means decay events are rare, meaning low cancer risk.
Any single radioisotope can be either highly radioactive or last for thousands of years; both at once is impossible. (Nuclear waste, of course, contains various isotopes of both sorts, and some in the middle -- this complicates fuel reprocessing and cleanup of shutdown or failed re
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't think that's an actual good counter to a MAD situation..
The problem is that MAD is merely weakly so. If it were the difference between making the rubble bounce once or ten times, it wouldn't matter. But the difference between partial and a far more complete destruction can be good enough to weaken or negate the purpose of MAD.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The EU isn't a country, it's a trade agreement.
It's a trade agreement with government and nuclear weapons.
The UK is essentially a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States in the event of a major nuclear conflict; the Royal Navy is even part of the American SIOP. Other NATO countries (Germany and Belgium) have access to American nuclear weapons under sharing agreements in the event of a major conflict, while France is also a member of NATO.
Where's your guarantee that this state of affairs will continue for the next fifty years? I don't see the point of extrapolating the current state of affairs to the indefinite future especially when it is obviously in flux.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a trade agreement wherein two of the participating countries have nuclear weapons. The EU doesn't command a single solider from its member states, much less the nuclear weapons possessed by the UK and France.
Yet. Once again, I don't see the point of extrapolation from the current state of affairs. Today the EU may be just a "trade agreement" (which it already really isn't BTW), in 2050 it could be an empire with a growing nuclear arsenal.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have inadequate destructive forces, we can literally blow up every major city on Earthy a multiple of 2 times. Closer to 10 times.
That's not good enough to defeat a large military power which has deliberated hardened itself against nuclear attack. And 2 is not very close to 10.
Dual-use for scientific stockpile replenishment? (Score:5, Interesting)
In The Meantime... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Different isotope, different production process, different quantity needs, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Different isotope, different production process, different quantity needs, etc."
No, it's a byproduct of the production process.
Blech (Score:5, Informative)
The Union of Concerned Scientists includes some scientists, but is an anti-nuclear political organization. This headline is like saying "Teenagers have unhealthy fantasies playing D&D, say mothers" amd omitting from the headline that "mothers" really refers to "Mothers Against Dungeons and Dragons".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This exactly.
Can we please stop using the term "scientists" in headlines? Anybody can call themselves a scientist (whether or not they are a competent one,) and scientists usually work for a particular organization - name that organization instead.
Re:Blech... MADD (Score:2)
I thought it was Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, not Mothers Against Dungeons and Dragons... so hard to keep track these days...
Re:Blech... MADD (Score:4, Funny)
They're the same people. It says so in my Players Handbook.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Union of Concerned Scientists includes some scientists, but is an anti-nuclear political organization. This headline is like saying "Teenagers have unhealthy fantasies playing D&D, say mothers" amd omitting from the headline that "mothers" really refers to "Mothers Against Dungeons and Dragons".
This is not even close to correct about the policies of UCS. See:
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/
and
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-and-our-energy-choices/nuclear-power-and-global-warming/house-testimony-on-nuclear.html
They are very strongly looking at nuclear safety issues, but specifically are neither pro-or-con on nuclear power itself. The organization does a great deal of research into all matters related to energy and safety and sustainability issues. They are well aware of the
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected, somewhat. However, they are definitely a left-wing politcal organization and have opposed most forms of nuclear power in practice. Referring to a political organization as "scientists" in a headline is misleading.
As for Mothers against D&D it may very well be a mistake, so if you like, change the example. You wouldn't have a headline saying "Muslims a danger, say the British" without mentioning that "British" refers to the British National Party.
Re: (Score:2)
Union of Concerned Scientists [discoverthenetworks.org]
Givernment doesn't care (Score:2, Interesting)
What no one seems to get is that no one in federal government(*) cares what's right for society, for the people, or even for their own survival.
The purpose of government is to siphon funds away from individuals and give it to corporations. That's the length and breadth of it, there are no other considerations.
The purpose of airport security is to give money to scanner companies. (Oh, these scanners don't work? We'll throw them out and purchase your newer model.) The purpose of Obamacare is to give money to
neutral? (Score:4, Insightful)
The union of concerned scientists is effectively a front for Greenpeace. They are rabidly anti-nuclear in any regard. It's a bit like saying your going to claim the Tea Party to be neutral on taxes.
UCS are environmentalists (Score:2)
Thirty seconds worth of Googling shows that the Union of Concerned Scientists is an environmental business, like Greenpeace, not "an independent science advocacy organization." Is it really a news story than a bunch of environmentalists are anti-nuke?
Re: (Score:2)
Not toeing the Military-Industrial Complex' party line seems pretty bloody independent to me
Today was a bad day in traffic (Score:2)
I want my wmd.
And I want it now!
Scientists against science? (Score:3)
We are having a huge shortage of several forms of plutonium and some of the other byproducts of nuclear fission (helium for example) in several of our scientific fields. Most of the cold-war era plants have shut down because we don't want any more weapons nor the risk of clean nuclear energy from the 70s, we'd rather set back medical imaging and energy production back a century than have safe -BUT NUCULAR- (and 50 years more progressive than the current average nuclear plant) energy production in our backyard.
Re: (Score:2)
"Fun-loving, curious, and playful, Pluto has the heart of a puppy. He is a very loyal companion to Mickey."
I think it is Mickey whom we should cancel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I notice all the fuss rests on the tension created by the phrase " expected future downward trajectory of the U.S. nuclear arsenal". Now what Rocket Surgeon actually expects there to be a future downward trajectory of the U.S. nuclear arsenal? Allies? Enemies? Penguins surfing Dubai? Snake handling faith healers? Nope, poll says everyone is pretty sure everyone is building nuke weapons, so they are buffing up too. That downward trajectory stuff, is just the horseapple pie that the press serves to the public
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A bit of history for you- chumps believe anything the government approves for mass consumption. North Korea is escalating their raspberry posturing along with military capability (maybe so, maybe no), Iran is/wants to be in the game, many small countries have large organizations that aren't beneath dirty bombs.
Don't tell me squat about downward trajectory unless you mean some statistical credibility according to some self appointed authority.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Proper
Re: (Score:2)
Waste not , want not.
We really should do upgrades and recycle instead of buying a new toy every time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The food stamps program began as a farming subsidy. It was all in the name of maintaining enough food production capacity in the US such that even in the case of embargo or restraint of trade the US could carry on feeding itself. At least it was sold that way. Regarding the welfare state I think that is less of a problem than the rampant tax evasion done since the start of globalization. It is little surprising the US federal government can no longer collect enough taxes. We keep hearing the cases of Apple
Re: (Score:2)
1.3% of GDP in so-called interest payments isn't that much. It's funny how all of our "interest" payments are actually bond redemptions at face value - that is, we only pay back principle and interest together in a single transaction - but folks only manage to worry about the interest.
The truth is the US doesn't even have to resort to money printing to pay back its bonds, because the act of "printing" actually occurred way back when the bond itself was sold. After that, the bond is just another kind of pape
Re: (Score:2)