replica watch ROLEX LOVE
FAKE NIKE SHOES SALE
Haw-haw ！It is a very beaufitul writing! The moderator is really a man of intention. I really appreciate his wisdom and philosophy of life http://www.rolex8u.com
http://www.watchinstyle.com/rolex-datedate-white-diamondsswiss-eta-2836-p-768.html?zenid=teg6g8jtnlurrhkmbomsugkuj7
http://easyforbuy.com/002-puma-shoes-all-black-p-4029.html
http://lowestmall.com/9826-nike-king-black-sapphire-p-5367.html?zenid=iu1fq75j2cmr6534iltfb807i5
http://onestoptown.com/
http://www.rolex8u.com
http://www.easyforbuy.com
http://www.ecforshop.com
http://www.gomykick.com
http://www.lowestmall.com
http://www.onestoptown.com
http://www.rolex8u.com
http://www.watchinstyle.com
http://www.yourshop.cc
http://www.instylewatch.com
http://www.sellbestshoes.com
http://www.buynikeshoes.com
http://www.pickhandbag.COM
http://www.pickmywatch.COM
http://www.pickthebag.COM
http://www.rolexwatchforu.COM
http://www.replicawatchforu.COM
http://www.wearmyrolexnow.com

Posted by: fakewatch at October 23, 2008 09:45 PM

The nuclear ambitions of India, the Middle East States, and North Korea convince me that the United States needs to continue refining its own nuclear weapons technology.

First, the Reliable Replacement Warhead development program I believe is a good idea. The concept of designing and building simple, secure, and reliable nuclear weapons that can be scaled up in yield if necessary seems prudent.

Second, the possibility of directed energy nuclear weapons such as a nuclear bomb pulsed x-ray laser concept should be considered. I believe open literature on the subject was available during the 1980s at the height of the SDI program, referred to in public slang as the “Star Wars” program. The concept involves the excitation of the energy levels within the atoms of exotic isotopic materials by a nuclear explosion whereupon the materials would produce a narrow beam of x-rays in the nanoseconds before the materials were reduced to a plasma state. Rumors indicate that such a program may have had limited success but may also have been a diversionary tactic to though off Soviet research agendas. If such devices can be effectively designed, one such device with numerous lasing rods could in theory destroy almost the entire in-flight supply of enemy nuclear warheads in one feld-swoop. The caveat is that the device could only be used once, since the intense heat and ionizing radiation of the nuclear weapon trigger would ionize the device on the scale of nanoseconds.

Third, the possibility of directed energy or axially biased blasts from nuclear weapons appeared in mainstream news media reports during the late 1970s and early 1980s within magazines at least within the United States. Accordingly, perhaps a large portion of the blast energy could be directed downward into a target in an airburst in such a manner that the target would receive a much higher concentration of blast energy as well as heat energy, and thermal radiation but wherein the surrounding populated civilian areas would suffer a reduced level of destruction.

Fourth, the tailoring of the primary initial energy emissions from nuclear devices has at the very least been proposed and in some cases researched, a good example of which is the so-called neutron bomb which emits about 85 percent of its energy in the form of neutron flux as apposed to only about 5 to 10 percent for a conventional nuclear weapon. A neutron bomb of a paltry one kiloton in yield could accordingly induce certain fatalities within a range of up to 1.5 kilometers from the blast center, even for those otherwise protected within the confines of armored vehicles such as main battle tanks and within reinforced buildings. Depending on the fissionable or fissionable and fusionable materials used in the construction of a nuclear device as well as the inclusion of any surrounding energy absorbing materials and/or depending on the altitude of detonation, nuclear weapons can be designed to emit greater or lesser degrees of gamma rays, hard x-rays, soft x-rays, ultra violate and visible light, as well as lower frequency radiation such as electromagnetic pulse frequencies.

Fifth, the levels or radioactive fallout can be tailored for greater or lesser destructive effects on human beings and other animals such as live-stock. Certain isotopes of various elements can be included within the nuclear device, wherein, upon neutron capture and other transmutative processes produced as a result of the fusion fragment and/or fission fragment capture of the former, longer lived or short lived radioactive fallout species can be produced. Short lived fallout, for example, that is tailored to produce intense high energy particle or gamma ray emissions can be useful for short term lethality effects within the area exposed to the fallout. Longer lived intense energy emitters can be produced as fallout in cases where it is desired to deny the enemy safe haven after a nuclear attack.

Note that some of the proposed short half-live transformed precursor materials have a half life ranging from hours to only a few days, thus effecting the area exposed to fallout in such a manner that those unprotected would suffer certain death. Other radio-isotopes such as an isotope of Cobalt, have a have life of roughly 5 years but emit high energy gamma rays thus denying habitability of an effected region for many years.

Sixth, the idea of pure fusion weapons is an area of interest by U.S. nuclear weapons scientists because of the potentially much less radioactive fallout that would be produced for a device with a given yield, but also, because such devices would be or could be made much more compact and/or with optionally lower yields. A softball size pure fusion weapon that had a mass of one kilogram, but wherein 90 percent or more of its mass would undergo fusion, could have a yield of at least 160 kilotons, which is about 15 times the yield of the device that leveled Hiroshima.

Various methods have been proposed to induce fusion in such devices such as the stable incorporation of miniscule amounts of antimatter disposed within the device in such a manner that wherein in order to detonate the device, the antimatter would be combined with matter and the resulting heat would result in the production of a self-sustaining fusion chain reaction that would propagate through the bulk fusionable material of the device.

Another method might entail a mechanism for passing a tremendous current through a device made of very thin wires wherein the vaporized wires within the bulk of the fusion fuel would become ionized to reach a temperature of 10 million K to 100 million K thus igniting the fusion fuel. Such devices for initiating nuclear fusion are the referred to as “Z-pinches” and are the subject of U.S. government sponsored research. Temperatures as high as a few million K have been produced through such devices thus far.

Seventh, the U.S. Air force as of the year 2004 is rumored to be conducting research on antimatter weapons in general. One gram of antimatter combined with one gram of normal matter would result in an explosion of about 45 kilotons which is about 4 times greater than the yield of the device that leveled Hiroshima. One kilogram of antimatter reacted with one kilogram of normal matter would be equal to a whopping 45 megatons which is 4,500 times the yield of the device that leveled Hiroshima. An experimental material called positronium is rumored to be the subject of research investigation wherein, positronium would be a bound state of a positron and an electron wherein the two particles forming a so-called positronium atom would be held at an appropriate distance that would allow stable positronium atoms to exist. The bulk positronium material would be set off at the appropriate time by some perturbation of the material which would destabilize the positronium.

Other applications and additional types of nuclear weapons can probably be developed including devices based on principles that have not been discovered yet.

The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back in. But we can manage our nuclear technology in a safe and responsible manner.

Although I am a conservative Catholic, I have no qualms about the utility of maintaining a nuclear deterrence and a strong defense. Terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda certainly would like to acquire nuclear weapons and although I am not speaking for the Catholic Church, I believe, if I am not mistaken, that even the Pope has spoken on the potential problems or serious issues that could in sue if, say, the U.S. were to unilaterally abandoned all of its nuclear weapons in a world where proliferation of such weapons seems to becoming out of control.

Posted by: James M. Essig at September 30, 2008 11:31 AM

I believe that the Bush's system is only doing harm to the US population. Why preparing for war? Is he planning on attacking another country that could provide them with petrol?

Posted by: licorice sale at July 30, 2008 04:11 AM

Bowie,

Again, you seem to take alot of interest in a country that is not your own. And you continue to offer rationalizations for the ousting or overthrow of our government's leadership, even after admitting that you're not a citizen of our country. Why then should I, as an American citizen, listen to you? By rights, I would expect that a citizen of another country would have something against our country, nationalism and all that.

Having said that, I like Iacoca. In his day he difinitely had an impact on the business models here in the U.S. But I will say that being a CEO is not being an elected official at the highest levels, especially the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces. I wouldn't even compare the two as he has done, though it certainly shows the moxy he's known for. As I said before, the only people who know what it means to be the President, are the current President and former Presidents still living. Everybody else is just a spectator.

Like I stated in previous posts, only time will tell what impact the policies of the U.S. and it's leaders will have in the future. I reserve judgement until that time. Peace.

Posted by: JCM at April 25, 2007 01:31 PM

JCM,

I thought you would be interested in this. As Lee Iacocca says "I've not been Commander in Chief", but he has been CEO of Chrysler...Seems to hold the same fears and concerns as me.

Below is an excerpt from an article he has written, which is part of a book he has written called "Where have all the leaders Gone?". I've given a link to the site so you can read the whole article it is well worth it.

Thelink to the site is

http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/1145/1/

"Had Enough? Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course." Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out! You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies.Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don't need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for.

I've had enough. How about you? I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. My friends tell me to calm down. They say, "Lee, you're eighty-two years old. Leave the rage to the young people." I'd love to, as soon as I can pry them away from their iPods for five seconds and get them to pay attention. I'm going to speak up because it's my patriotic duty. I think people will listen to me. They say I have a reputation as a straight shooter. So I'll tell you how I see it, and it's not pretty, but at least it's real. I'm hoping to strike a nerve in those young folks who say they don't vote because they don't trust politicians to represent their interests. Hey, America, wake up. These guys work for us. Who Are These Guys, Anyway? Why are we in this mess? How did we end up with this crowd in Washington? Well, we voted for them, or at least some of us did. But I'll tell you what we didn't do. We didn't agree to suspend the Constitution. We didn't agree to stop asking questions or demanding answers. Some of us are sick and tired of people who call free speech treason. Where I come from that's a dictatorship, not a democracy. And don't tell me it's all the fault of right-wing Republicans or liberal Democrats. That's an intellectually lazy argument, and it's part of the reason we're in this stew. We're not just a nation of factions. We're a people. We share common principles and ideals. And we rise and fall together.

Where are the voices of leaders who can inspire us to action and make us stand taller? What happened to the strong and resolute party of Lincoln? What happened to the courageous, populist party of FDR and Truman? There was a time in this country when the voices of great leaders lifted us up and made us want to do better. Where have all the leaders gone?

The Test of a Leader
I've never been Commander in Chief, but I've been a CEO. I understand a few things about leadership at the top. I've figured out nine points, not ten (I don't want people accusing me of thinking I'm Moses). I call them the "Nine Cs of Leadership." They're not fancy or complicated. Just clear, obvious qualities that every true leader should have. We should look at how the current administration stacks up. Like it or not, this crew is going to be around until January 2009. Maybe we can learn something before we go to the polls in 2008. Then let's be sure we use the leadership test to screen the candidates who say they want to run the country. It's up to us to choose wisely.

And by the way you can be a Christian full of hope and belief but not hold any belief in heaven. I follow Christ because a life in him gives me meaning and strength and bravery in this life, I don't need promises of heaven to do that, just the knowledge that all the evil that humans could throw at him did not stop his spirit from prevailing.

Hope you enjoy

Posted by: bowie54 at April 23, 2007 07:11 PM

Bowie,

You seem to go out of your way to make far-reaching broad-based statements of fact about which you know little. I'm insulted to some degree that you would think the majority of Americans agree with comments like Don made, let alone speaking for myself. I never liked popular opinion, but you appear to be a master of rumors and colloquialism yourself.

I don't believe that mainstream America has a voice and generally choose not to participate in it's civic duty as evidenced by the past couple of decades of less than stellar turn-out in both local and federal elections. With less than 50% normally participating, can you then say that the "majority" of Americans are not in agreement with current policy, whether right or left? My belief is that the "majority" of Americans aren't even represented in substantial way. It's only the extreme views like yours that capture headlines and lend to the perception that things are out of whack. I guess if you look at the world through those glasses, things would seem that way.

Another example of how popular opinion is captured is through using polls. Amazing things really (I'm being sarcastic.) How exactly can one surmise what 300m people think by asking staged questions of only 1,000? The percentage is so small you need a special calculator just to figure out how small the number really is. I base my opinions on my education and experience, relationships that I've had in my life (both professional and personal), and just plain old common sense.

Very little of what happens in our lives is personally directed at ourselves. For the most part, we are spectators in an elaborate game. Sometimes this makes us feel helpless and we try to compensate by reaching out farther than our grasp can support us. Such is the case, I believe, with you Bowie. I'm saddened that you don't believe in heaven. It must be difficult to endure living with no hope that something better is over the horizon of life. That's all that heaven represents, really. The belief that our lives somehow have meaning, and that any sacrifices we make for the common good will somehow be accounted for and make it all worth it.

I hope that peace finds you and leads you to a place where the world doesn't look so dreary and full of hate. I for one believe the world is a much better place, as are the people in it. Peace.

Posted by: JCM at April 20, 2007 11:04 AM

Don,

I take it that your comment " It would be my pleasure to introduce you to the 27 virgins!" is an invitation to send me to the Muslim heaven. Does this mean that you are offering to kill me?

So is this how people in the United States respond to people who have a difference of opinion? Is this how you train your soldiers? What happens in Iraq if ordinary people there dispute with your soldiers? Do you offer to introduce them to the 27 virgins as well? I'm sure it's taken as a joke there - as much as I am taking it as a joke.

JCM and others, are you comfortable with Don's comments? I would take no comment from you that you are in support. Do the moderators of this site think it is appropriate for death threats to be offered to people who post here?

Is it against the law in the United States to offer death threats, or have you descended further into fascism than even I had feared?

And by the way Don, I am not a Muslim, don't actually believe in heaven, and even if there is such a place I don't think there would be 27 Virgins there for me.

I hope one day your country returns to being the great and wonderful place it used to be, and comments and opinions I have heard here are treated with the contempt that they deserve.

May you all find peace and gentleness one day.

Posted by: bowie54 at April 14, 2007 04:03 AM

Bowie54

You are an idiot and I am thankful you are not a citizen of the US. It would be my pleasure to introduce you to the 27 virgins!

Posted by: Don at April 5, 2007 11:20 PM

The decison to advance our military power is a good thing. Would you rather fear a country that could wipe us out with a push of a botton or would you rather be the country feared. If we went to war we should be able to crush our enemy to were they wont be able to fight back ever again.

Posted by: Rocky at April 2, 2007 10:40 AM

Bowie,

I'm sorry, but as far as I know, Wikipedia is not officially recognized as a legitimate source of information by the academic world. I know this because my wife is currently in a Masters Program and her professors refuse to recognize it as a research source. So I ask your forgiveness in advance for not "checking" with Wikipedia to validate your argument.

Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by strawmen. You presented some points of view and I presented some points of view. How is your point of view more valid than mine. The fact is, you cannot refute my position that in the U.S. we don't have a true democracy from a technical point of view, we are a republic. What does that mean exactly? Well, it means that the bullies down the street can't impose their view on others without their consent. If they try, they are breaking the law.

Being that you come from a country outside of the U.S. it doesn't surprise me that your views are different. In fact, I would expect that almost every country in the world has a viewpoint different than we do. As should be expected. My comment about your lack of understanding of my position is based on that logic.

That facts are quite clear. The U.S. was founded by, and continues to thrive because of, the oppressive governments or societies that exist around the world. In fact, in the time of our founding fathers, England was one of those states that people were fleeing from. This is something that you cannot deny, mainly because it's obvious.

When our Constitution was drafted, the authors of it took into consideration the historical failure of democracy in it's truest form. And in order to give democracy a lasting and enduring chance at success they created a representative form of democracy, or a republic. The main idea was that every citizen had inalienable rights that could not be taken away by majority vote. Since true democracy is based on a majority vote, you can then conclude that we are not a true democracy, though the word is often used to mischaracterize the U.S. and it's dealings with other countries.

In your comments you allude to my supporting Noriega. That's insulting. You allude to my supporting war crimes. That is also insulting. You suggest that we should have seat belts and motorcycle helmets, but we have had those laws for years. You address the numbers, but avoid the real issue that makes the deaths meaningless ... alcohol consumption and then operating a motor vehicle. You comment on murders, but fail to recognize that only a percentage were committed using a gun. You definitely wanted to plug your anti-gun point of view, and I was talking about bad behavior which I find much more tragic than soldiers doing their job.

The bottom line is this, The U.S. is NOT the rest of the world. It's supposed to be different. That's why everyone comes here, because of the difference. The more we gravitate in YOUR direction, the more we cease to be different and all the benefits that come along with it, be they real or imagined. So when you start talking about how much better your position is I'm obviously going to reject that position because I don't believe it. If I did, then I'd be just like you, wouldn't I?

Only time will tell if you are right or I am right. Most likely long after we are both gone. In the meantime, we can trade points of view and entertain the gallery. Peace.

Posted by: JCM at March 30, 2007 01:18 PM

JCM,

For someone who accuses others of having a closed mind, you are incredibly selective in the people you quote. You forgot Thomas Paine - remember he was the one who coined the term United States of America - and was a signatory to your constitution, and wrote radical democratic pamphlets which would probably make you apoplectic.

You, or others who want to have an open mind, might be interested in looking at these sites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Thomas+Paine&sourceid=mozilla-search

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Man#Aristocracy_versus_Democracy

Just a little aside. Have you thought what your heroes of the American Revolution would have been called if they were fighting the english today? A few clues-they Destroyed Civilian targets (Boston Tea Party), attacked the legitimate government (it happened to be the british)I'll leave you to put a name to that.

Have you read de Toqueville - he was a frenchman who wrote about your thriving democracy in the 1830's. He was impressed with the democracy you had then. There is a very good biography of him that has just been printed which you might want to read.

I haven't accused you of being pro war, pro torture or anything else. You spend a lot of time building straw men to attack rather than answering the points I put to you. That generally shows that you are finding it difficult to put a counter view.

In my country we would welcome you even if you do have a radically different point of view to most of us. So you would be welcome in our country JCM. Its a pity that your country is so intolerant of difference. I'll put my hat on now.

Posted by: bowie54 at March 30, 2007 03:09 AM

Bowie,
It doesn't surprise me in the least that you have no understanding of what presented. Noriega and every other two-bit dictator in the world have no clue as to what I presented. But just so everyone understands, nothing of what I said was original material. Check out the Federalist Papers written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, two prominent authors of the U.S. Constitution. The words I used to describe democracy was originally written by them, not me, over two hundred years ago. Democracy without checks and balances IS NOT a good thing for any minority opinion. The only thing that makes our form of government work so well is the protections that the law gives everyone, not just the majority opinion. So in fact, true democracy IS mob rule.

As for my own feelings, I've never been pro-war, pro-torture, or anything else you seem to think that you want to label me with. Your take is just way to easy and makes alot of assumptions and we all know about those. And to tell you the truth, I'm very happy that you don't want to live here. So don't forget to pick up your hat on the way out.

Posted by: JCM at March 29, 2007 10:58 PM

Wow JCM

Where do I begin with you? And more to the point, why aren’t there people on this site appalled at what you are saying. Lets go through your points

“The greatest evil identified by our founding fathers was democracy. They knew even then that "the mob" was the greatest threat to liberty and freedom.”

And another

“This country was founded as a republic, a representative-democracy with checks and balances, under a rule of law. But that is changing. The mob is gaining the upper hand. And my greatest fear is that democracy will prevail and destroy this great country of ours.”

Do you really mean to tell me that you consider Democracy as evil? Well that will come as news to most people in the United States. and even the "potus" might be a little surprised given some of his recent speeches. Try this one for size

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html

The rest of the world knows that the United States holds democracy in contempt, but most Americans seem to console themselves when they realise how little they are regarded across the world that they are bastions of democracy. Well there goes that argument.

The contempt the United States holds for democracy is well documented in the regimes you support and the activities you engage in in “your hemisphere” The United States engineered a coup in Chile to install the dictator, Pinochet Heres a wikipedia reference for that one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

The United Sates supported a thug in Panama until he was of no use to them, Perhaps you were involved eh JCM? Here’s a wikipedia reference to refresh your memory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega

Given your views on Democracy, I’m sure you have a lot of sympathy with these men. They were good military men, didn’t care too much for democracy and were willing to make sure annoyances like the mob were put down. Dissent wasn’t a problem when they ruled.

So is this the type of country that you want for America?

Are you sure that it is the type of state your countyrmen died in the Second World War for? They were fighting states who had a similar view of democracy, the mob and dissent that you seem to have.

Have you talked to others of your citizens lately and asked if they actually agree with you? Perhaps you ought to get out more and open that mind of yours.

I won’t go on to the other parts of your posts, apart from your murder rate. I’ll give you a hint on that- you have lots of guns in your country- get gun control. Look at countries who are much freer than yours who have effective gun control, and a very small murder rate. On your car accident statistics- what about mandatory seat belts and motorcycle helmets-it will reduce your rate remarkably.
No I have not been in the military, but in a free state the military are the servants of the people, and answer to them. I have made it clear in all my posts that I admire most probably 90% of the people who serve my country in this way, but I get very suspicious of those in the military who think they have a sole right to talk of rights and wrongs of their actions. That way leads to tyranny. Do you remember anything about the Japanese in WWII. Their military thought they had special rights and see where that led that country.
I’d also like to let you know that I am NOT a citizen of the United States, and I never want to be. If my government colluded with your government to come under your control, I would fight to the death to ensure it didn’t happen, and so would most of the people in my country. We love our freedoms, and we see your country as a place that takes them away.
And to finish. I won’t be writing to this post any more. The thought that people with the views I have seen expressed here have or have had access to Weapons of Mass Destruction, and want more fills me with dread. I’ve seen attitudes expressed here that would not have been out of place in Italy, Germany or Japan in the thirties. The views I’ve seen expressed here makes it clear to me that the sooner the United States is relieved of its weapons the better for world peace. I’m leaving this site with a heavy heart, and a feeling that the world is very unsafe with guardians like you.

Posted by: bowie54 at March 27, 2007 07:03 PM

Bowie,

I'm not assuming anything, only responding to your previous posts. You seem to think that the rest of us have no idea what's going on and that we need to be educated to the "real" state of affairs. You make your statements as if they are fact, when they are in reality just your opinion, and that of other members of the mob.

The greatest evil identified by our founding fathers was democracy. They knew even then that "the mob" was the greatest threat to liberty and freedom. That's why they created the Constitution in the likeness of a republic, so that all citizens would have protections under the law. I didn't make that up, and you can check it out from many sources. So your continued use of the term democracy and the use of "we" tells me volumes about the way you think.

The POTUS has a cast of thousands that provide him with information, much of which we probably will never see. His every speech is crafted to send a message deemed appropriate at the time it was made. This applies to every president, whether they are a Rep or Dem. Those that criticize any President's words presume to know more than they do. I for one will never make that assumption.

The issue here was about nukes. The question brought before us was our thoughts on the article presented, which I'm sure isn't all the information available on the subject. I commented earlier about this, believing that we have no choice but to maintain a position of strength as a deterent to those who would do us harm. I am not so naive as to believe that we could turn our backs on the world and it would leave us in peace to live and prosper as we would.

And you are correct, I don't know a thing about you, but for your words presented here. Are you a veteran? If so, how long did you serve? I recently retired after 24 years of service. I worked in the intelligence field. I traveled extensively in this hemisphere, and lived abroad more than 11 years. I grew up poor, worked hard my whole live, got my education at night school, and now live a modest, if not stressful life, as do most Americans I'm sure.

I believe that you Sir, are in the minority opinion. The Constitution protects your right to free speech, but not speech without consequences. You come here preaching to those who have served, knowing full well the risks involved with doing so. Most, if not all who serve, would do so again, as would I. Such is the reward of freedom, and dearly bought, as you say. I can think of no more honorable pursuit. And yet, as is your wont, come here to sow the seeds of dissension.

Soldiers are schooled to question unlawful orders only. There is no accounting for those who would take the law into their own hands and commit a crime. And I am not denying that it has happened. But the vast majority of those who serve are law-abiding citizens who conduct themselves with honor and integrity. Who understand the seriousness of their commitment and do us proud. Thier service should not be tainted by spirulous comments from the gallery as it seems to me yours are.

The vast majority of the deaths in Iraq are being committed by the Iraqis themselves, and not by the U.S. or it's agents. And these deaths pale in comparison to the atrocities conducted by the previous regime. As for the 3,000+ soldiers lost in four years of fighting, I find that an amazing statistic considering the potential for the loss of more.

But let me ask you this ... how do you account for the average 16,000 murders per year in our country? Or the 13,000 vehicular deaths per year attributable to alcohol? If you want to show outrage, why not focus your attention on that, instead of soldiers doing their job. Compare the loss of 3,200 soldiers to the 116,000 civilians who died in our country during the same time period to the themes I presented. Is that not a more real tragedy?

I refuse to harken to the minority opinion just because it's the flavor of the month. Show me facts and I might be pursuaded. We have many more serious problems in this country beside the arguments you presented here. This country was founded as a republic, a representative-democracy with checks and balances, under a rule of law. But that is changing. The mob is gaining the upper hand. And my greatest fear is that democracy will prevail and destroy this great country of ours.

So please Sir, show me not the minority opinion presented as a popular vote. The largest portion of voting Americans aren't even represented (40%) as compared to the fringe elements (Left or Right) who are fairly balanced. We don't know what the majority of Americans think because they don't participate in the process. So it's impossible for anyone at this point to take the high road. Would that we had true representation in this country versus the political nightmare it has become.

Like it or not, nukes are here to stay. Like it or not, we are world leaders. Like it or not, the global economy is here to stay. Like it or not, there are those who will always oppose us. Why would anyone want to help them, unless they belong to the clamouring mob? Fear the enemy from within.

Posted by: JCM at March 19, 2007 11:40 AM

JCM,

You are making a whole heap of assumptions in your post. You don’t know what I am or what choices I have made. I could be rich or poor, I may well have been the president of a large corporation or a senior person in my country’s political process. You don’t know. And it really doesn’t matter in a democracy anyway. In a democracy it is not good enough for a politician, especially a leader to say that he (or his coterie) alone knows what is good for the country. That is the difference between a tyranny and a democracy. It is also not good enough for us as citizens to allow ourselves to give up our power to decide what is good for our country. We all have the right to decide what is good for the country and that has been fought for with great loss of blood.

I’ll do you the courtesy of going through your points one by one, because I actually want to understand where you are coming from, and hopefully understand more clearly your point of view. You quite rightly can see that I would be more comfortable on more “liberal” sites, but I can’t be sure that my points of view are correct if I don’t engage and discuss my views with those who may virulently disagree with me. You are helping me to hone and perhaps even change my points of view. Thank you for that.

Now lets start:
“People work at Walmart because compared to other similar businesses, they're actually pretty decent jobs. People shop at Walmart because they provide goods that people want at a price they can afford. Who cares what exemptions they are given? That's reality.”
OK. So are you comfortable that to get those low prices your manufacturing jobs are now off shore in China, and that many of the small businesses that were the backbone of your country are no longer viable? Have you thought that maybe the goods are not being priced at Walmart to actually reflect their value- both in labour, in the cost of the goods within them, or the cost of the good to the planet as a whole? Perhaps some goods are meant to be too expensive to buy, because they are very costly.

Would you be comfortable in a situation where you had no real ability to bargain for your wages so your employer could name the price of your labour? I don’t know about you but that doesn’t sound fair to me.

Have you talked to workers at Walmart or listened to their complaints? There are some good sites on the Internet where you can if you are interested, and many of those people have a different story to yours. We don’t have Walmart in our country but I have talked to people who are or who have worked in similar stores, and for those who are not managers, most see it as a desperation job, and very few like the company.

“Your soldiers weren't lied to any more than our soldiers were lied to. It's not their job to pick and choose what they do. Soldiers follow orders. Period. They are not paid to question the motives of their leaders, just as they are free to vote for whomever they think will do the best job.”
The bottom line is JCM, that your politicians and the politicians here lied to our country and to our soldiers to get them to go to war. In my book that is the worst possible lie, because as a result of it, more than 3000 of your compatriots have died, many many more have been wounded, and many many thousands of innocent Iraqis have died. (JCM, I’m talking of young children and women here, not insurgents or terrorists). Making a lie to send that many people to their deaths is unacceptable to me, regardless of what ends the politicians may have wanted to achieve. Is it unacceptable to you?

Like I said in my last post I have nothing but admiration for some one who is prepared to give up their life to defend another person. When that person is in the service of a State, I would hope the State would respect that person enough only to send them to war when it is absolutely necessary, and to never lie to them. I would also hope that those people would be given the respect of wholesome adequate food, good drinking water, and the best possible medical and psychological treatement when they return from war. Look at the recent reports in say the New York Times, and read about how returned soldiers are getting medical treatment in your country. Are you really comfortable JCM, to say that Halliburton knew what is what is doing, and therefore should not be questioned when it engaged in questionable practices in supplying your troops or overcharging you, an American taxpayer, for the services it provided.

Have you heard of the Nuremburg defence JCM? That was where Nazi war criminals tried to say that they were just following orders. It was soundly rejected. Soldiers are there to follow orders, but they must know that does not excuse them from criminal acts or war crimes. Those who were prosecuted and imprisoned for their actions at Abu Ghraib also realised that “I was just following orders” was not a defence. So yes, Soldiers must follow orders, and go where the politicians tell them, but they also have an obligation not to engage in war crimes or unethical conduct, and have a duty not to follow orders that may make them do such a thing. On the other side of that obligation is that the State only puts them in harms way when absolutely necessary and never on the basis of a lie.

I hope I haven’t maligned you JCM, and if I have it was certainly unintentional. I hope that we might be able to have a good discussion where perhaps we can see and respect each others point of view

Posted by: bowie54 at March 16, 2007 05:57 PM

bowie54,
The easiest thing in the world is to be an arm-chair quarterback, criticizing someone else's work from a safe distance. The second easiest thing in the world is to blame other's for your lot in life.

I could spend all day describing how and why I disagree with almost every premise you made in your comments, mostly because it's probably a waste of my time. Mostly for the following reasons:

- You can never understand what motivates a person to serve unless you yourself have served.

- You can never understand what it means to be a President unless you yourself have been one.

- You can never understand what it means to run a company like Haliburton unless you actually do so.

The fact of the matter is, you probably wouldn't accept anybody else's reality because your mind is already closed and regurgitating the old arguments and cliches you've been presenting here.

People work at Walmart because compared to other similar businesses, they're actually pretty decent jobs. People shop at Walmart because they provide goods that people want at a price they can afford. Who cares what exemptions they are given? That's reality.

Your soldiers weren't lied to any more than our soldiers were lied to. It's not their job to pick and choose what they do. Soldiers follow orders. Period. They are not paid to question the motives of their leaders, just as they are free to vote for whomever they think will do the best job.

Bottom line is, you appear to spend alot of time maligning what you can't understand while blaming others for your own choices. What's so hard to understand about that? Believe what you will. It doesn't mean that anyone else has to, or needs to, believe it too. Peace.

Posted by: JCM at March 16, 2007 03:09 PM

Joel,

No the next bit is up to you. One of your other duties as a citizen of the United States is to make sure that your politicians meet your aspirations and standards. My duty is to ensure that the politicians in the country I live in do the same.

As a military person you are duty bound to serve the politicains, but as a citizen you can make sure that they do not betray the sacrifice you are prepared to make. Make no mistake, I have nothing but admiration for a person who will put their life on the line to defend another. Until my country was lied to by its politicians and went to Iraq, our soldiers had a wonderful tradition of being "Diplomats with guns". Now, for the first time in our history our soldiers have benn betrayed and used to invade another country.

OK. So what needs to be done. First make yourself really aware of what your politicians have led your country into. Not just the wars you are involved in, but the economic mess that they have made. Your children and your grandchildren are going to be affected by that.

Ask why Vice President Cheney’s company Halliburton has decided to make its corporate headquarters in Dubai. While you are looking at that question, find out why they have overcharged you r army for the “support” they are giving in Iraq, which includes providing food which is unfit for consumption, and unfiltered water from the Tigris.

Have a good look at your housing market. Ask why it is collapsing and who is responsible for it.

Take the time to talk to some of the poor in your cities and find out how they see the country you live in. Here is a sample:

The problem in America is not just the Direct taxes but all the
imbedded taxes, fees, permits, regulations, inspections, etc. (each
with a fee attached) that are especially hard on those of the Lower
and middle classes. But, also many of the regulations are just insane.
PS. The major companies like Wal Mart get Exempted from most of them
and if you want to open a small local store will pay massively more
than they would pay to open a Wal Mart.

Let me give you an example: a year ago, before we got married, my wife
bought this house. It would by US "standards" be in a poorer
neighborhood and it is an older house of approximately 830 feet (I
thought it was about 900 but was corrected a few weeks ago). Being an
older house the water heater went out over a month ago. The water
heater "price" was $269 (could not dream of the cost of a tankless
model they started at $1300) the total including the tax was $316. Not
bad... except we had to break the law and ILLEGALLY install it
ourselves because we could not afford to have purchased the Permits to
install as well as the water heater as they added up to $180. We both
work for around $8 per hour before taxes. And in the US... we pay for
our own health insurance. My wife had a Seizure last year... spent 4
hours in the hospital... the bill is over $8500! It is nuts!

Amerika is Marketed that way to INDUCE CHEAP FOREIGN LABOR TO KEEP WAL
MART STOCKED WITH CHEAP EMPOYEES! A Great Grip because the one Home
that I had almost paid off, less that 6 months to go, is now a Wal
Mart Parking LOT! I wish i were kidding!

The Company that I worked or in 1980 use to pay me a percentage to
haul Tomatoes and other farm products to the caneries. Now those
products are coming out of CHINA! And if I want to work instead of
being able to make about $350 a day for the season working 20 hour
days and getting my health insurance for the year... I can now haul
the processed foods for $8.00 per hour at the absolute most and forget
about health insurance... even if it is offered it is beyond affordable.

Also Entire industries are Exempted from Labor Laws. Example TRUCKING
and Farm Labor and the wages are falling as fast as the Price of going
to work is Rising! It is a no win situation!

Actually I was divorced a little over a year ago, mostly over
economics... and lost my two Step Daughters in the process. My son
died in 2003 at the age of 22 weeks. So I can more than understand the
life is a bitch and then you die theory.

I keep working and trying to make a difference in my own life, the
lives of my family... and the community... But, it seems like the
attitude of people today is that if you cannot do it all and do it
now... it is not good enough... it gets old after a while. And sadly
drives more and more people away from caring about the massive trouble
that we are facing in the Future. I hear all the time "why bother" or
"than I better get it while I can" we need positive solutions, not
Zealotry...

Once you have done that get involved in the political life of your country and make the politicians into your servants. I can’t understand why Americans think that the president is someone they have to be loyal to. He is YOUR servant, make him do what you want. Allowing a man to be your ruler is getting yourself on the highway to tyranny.

Posted by: bowie54 at March 15, 2007 05:14 PM

MY NAME IS WAR!?

Sorry to go off-topic, but I read an amazing piece posted here by Sunshine/Rainbows called "My Name Is War." Call me ignorant, but I had never read it before and couldn't find any information about it online. Is it an excerpt from something famous? Who wrote it? I HAVE to know because I'd like to cite it for a project I am working on. If anyone knows, please email me at matt.bohicastudios@gmail.com!

Thanks!

Posted by: Matt R at March 14, 2007 05:34 PM

Bowie-You are obviously learned and eloquent. So I will give this ext bit to you. The duty of the soldier is sacrifice of all for someone else you do not even know. You will not win the "minds and hearts" of those here running down their leaders or their countries policies. The soldiers here know duty and live it. I did my duty and did it well. Do yours for humanity and get the ears of the worlds leaders with your words. Get me and my brothers and sisters out of a bloody and destructive job. You can not just "take" nukes from anyone with a "please" or anything like that so use that big brainpan of yours and become the worlds hero and figure out how to make world peace. All human beings have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (cornerstone of democracy that the villified US is trying to spread) and that applies to all. Some countries do not believe that women have these basic human rights. Other countries see it as where you are from inside the country on what you are allowed or your color. The US is just trying to give that ideal of freedom to everyone that WANTS it. You think of that when looking up at a soldier you have not "liberated" since his point of view is not correct with the rest of the "world" or you.

Posted by: Joel Shock MTC/SS USN (ret) at March 14, 2007 01:33 PM

Jim,

I'm all for a civilised conversation.

First what about remembering the beatitudes? like the meek shall inherit the earth- A United States that forgot about manifest destiny, and its place in biblical prophecy, but sat, was quiet and listened to the rest of us living on this planet could learn much and do amazing things, perhaps even get rid of nuclear weapons.

The United States had two wonderful opportunities to show the world the best that you could do in the last twenty years, and you have blown both. When the Berlin Wall came down, and the Soviet Union collapsed, you could have used the Peace benefit to show what the undoubted wealth you had then could do to undo some of the injustices that still plaqued the world. When September 11 happened, there were very few people in the world who did not support the United States. Within two years you had blown this as well. What could the States have done differently in these two cases?

In the late 1980’s you could have used the money you no longer had to spend on weapons to change swords into ploughshares. Instead you went out of your way to find new enemies. I remember so clearly reading a “Time” magazine at that time where there was a quote from a senior person in the CIA saying that now that they didn’t have anything to do in Eastern Europe, they would have to find enemies in the middle east so they could maintain their budget. This was when Saddam Hussein was a moderate Arab leader that was supported by the US. Within a year, he was the new Hitler.

Imagine what the United States could have done if you had reduced the budget of the CIA, and given that money to working with countries that could possibly be threats later on. Imagine developing such a strong positive view of the United States, that no-one would want to attack you. You can’t do this by lecturing people, or telling people what their morals should be or thinking that what is good for the US of A is good for everyone else. You need to be humble, sit down and listen, apologise for your mistakes, and be careful who you choose to be your friends. Guns make people hate you, coming with open hands and humility will give you respect and friends.

You didn’t learn the lessons of the eighties when September 11 happened. That was inexcusable and those who were responsible needed to be punished. It happened that the responsible people were citizens of one of your allies, Saudi Arabia, and you were not prepared to bring that country and its political and religious leaders to account. Instead your leaders used September 11 as a pretext to settle some old accounts with Saddam Hussein, and to control the oil in Iraq. You actually did the right thing in Afghanistan, but you made the mistake you always make- you think that once you have won the shooting war, you won the war. NO the shooting war is the easy bit, then you need to spend huge amounts of time and energy winning the hearts and minds of people. You can’t win any hearts and minds with tanks or soldiers strutting around with M16s. All that does is make people fear and loathe you. Take the armour off the soldiers, remove the sunglasses, get them hot and dirty working with local people building sewers, bridges, roads. Bring in the best of your engineers and your scientistsand even perhaps your economists and make them available to build up the country in ways which is appropriate to those who live there. This requires humility. You need to sit down with the women and the farmer working his land NOT the leaders: they are often the ones that have stolen from the women and the farmers, and listen to how they have solved problems perhaps for millennia, and be their companions rather than their leaders. If you listen carefully and cultivate a real friendship with these people you may find that they have real wisdom, and perhaps can teach even the United States something.

If you are careful, and are prepared to not preach, you may find that you have friends in the world rather than enemies, and you don’t need your weapons.

Remember also that even the most inexcusable act gives you the opportunity to reflect on why it happened to you. You had every right to be angry, but your country didn’t reflect on why people thought that they could justify September 11. You need to ask why Palestinians despise you. There are very good reasons, and honestly you are not God’s chosen people, and making dispossessed people suffer needlessly will not bring the God of Love to Armageddon any earlier. In fact I would hope that he is appalled that anyone could think he would want any such thing.

Anyway this sounds all very lovely and I am sure your friends will wave their guns at me and say there are enemies out there that have to be defeated, and I am naïve, but so was Christ. He didn’t walk around with an army, and when someone tried to defend him he told him not to be so stupid, and healed the centurion’s ear. He took a huge risk and walked to the cross not knowing whether love would win or not. His last words before he died showed his despair. But remember the spirit of love and strength that he represented grew from the hate around him, and he is remembered as the winner rather than the representatives of the army or the established church that condemned his ideas.

Posted by: bowie54 at March 14, 2007 04:33 AM

Bowie,
I hate nukes too! I wish they didn't exist or that we could at least get rid of them. When you figure out who's going to drop his gun first without becoming the target, let us all know. The problem is, someone's going to still have one. Who's it going to be? I'm going to stop being critical of you and agree to disagree on some points, however, the question I posed above is at the root of the problem of complete disarmament. As long as we still have the gun, it has to be maintained and updated with technology unless everyone else decides not to modernize or else take a chance and drop the gun. Again, who's it going to be? Should we do it first? Please don't respond negatively as I really want to see your opinion on this question. This was my last entry on this site.
Respectfully,
Jim

Posted by: Jim Stephens at March 13, 2007 10:11 PM

I'm sorry that this is such an emotional issue for so many people. Fear of the unknown, fear of sudden incineration can do that to normally rational people. When it comes to nuke weapons the fact is most people don't know as much as they think they do.

First, there is the extremely high tech knowledge that is over most people's head. I know it because I worked in nuclear power for twenty five years. Next there is the historical development, use and outright angst so many people suffer from when you even mention the word nuke. Finally, there is the political angle: can nukes be used without creating worse problems than they solve? And should we even have them in the first place?

The issue is far too complex for one side to think they are exclusively right. Everyone needs to deal with facts as they are and not as we want them to be. Nukes are here to stay, like it or not. Until some brilliant scientist develops a nuclear damper (a device that prevents nuclear reactions, it only exists in the mind of SF writers - for now.) The political expedience of possessing nukes goes beyond the Bush administration. My angry fellow who was so pissed at GW needs to recall Clinton had nukes too, so did every president going back to Truman. Don't get so twisted around semantics. Don't anyone forget that the point of this article was the fact that the Bush administration approved a new , safer design that is cheaper, easier to secure and requires less maintenance. Most importantly, the older, more unstable nukes are being withdrawn from service making the world a better place to live.

BTW: the German scientists who worked on the early nukes were neither Einstein or Von Braun. The US government didn't trust Einstein and von Braun came along after the war. He helped develop our space program. The guys you referred to have names like Neils Bohr, Frank and Robert Oppenheimer and many other famous physicists.

One last remark for the Apocalyptic fellows. Just as the anti-nuke crowd believes, you also make the mistake of believing that man can destroy the world. We can't. Our planet is much too well designed to sweat anything humans can hope to do. Remember most volcanic explosions are orders of magnitude greater that man's nuclear arsenal. And earthquakes well above that. The only thing man can do to the Earth is remove his place in it. Long after we are gone, life will continue, it always does. We are just not that important.

Thanks for your time.

Mojo, ELT-USN (ret)

Posted by: Morgan Johnson at March 13, 2007 09:58 PM

Dan,

So you think that God is responsible for all this destruction and pain?

Doesn't sound like the God of Love and Peace that I worship. He has sent his spirit into me to bring the good news that hatred and dissension and war were destroyed on his cross and his resurrection and that we can know that those who follow the path of hatred and war will not win.

Good luck with Armageddon. Just don't try to bring it on with your nukes.

Per

Posted by: bowie54 at March 13, 2007 09:48 PM

I want to make another point (indirectly related to my response to Jim Stephens) about Iraqi atrocities, and to all on this thread who keep belaboring it. All these atrocities did in fact take place...all before 1991. All before the Gulf War. We didnt give a shit then, why do we all of a sudden care now? Because its because its an excuse. Its a smoke-screen to hide the ineptitude of our current president. We have tons to worry about and Bowie54 makes a brilliant point about China and our National debt. Wake the hell up people!!!

Posted by: Jim at March 13, 2007 09:44 PM

Jim Stephens - You are living in fantasy land. Reply to me, call me names, but you are a clueless, ignorant person. History always, and will in this case, shows the errors of ones ways. I hope Im there when you are still trying to convince anyone, or yourself for that matter, that what we're doing (in Iraq)is(was) the way to go.
Bush is a goddamn liar, plain and simple, he is a liar and has done nothing but try and cover his ass since he landed on that flight deck declaring victory. Victory? Victory over what? WMDs, Saddam Hussein, The Terrorists, Iraqi Freedom? The bullshit has been twisted at every step. Im surprised "W" can keep it together. Theres been more twists on it than in the barrel of my M1A. We kept Saddam in check like no ones business, and he didnt make a move without our knowing about it. If we're all about "De Oppresso Liber", we sure arent doing a hell of a lot in Darfur. Saddam and Osama are two completely different individuals. Osama used to condemn Saddam. On the topic of Osama, give it up, the man is dead.

Just so you know:

-Im all for what we're doing in Afghanistan.
-Im all for the upkeep of our arsenal.
-I worked in Baghdad and watched the bullshit up close and personal for a damn long time.

Posted by: Jim at March 13, 2007 09:17 PM

Do we really need more nukes??? This world is insane enough already. Yes I agree with some of the comments that say Nukes are here to stay, but get real. We need to reduce the quantities, not devise new ways to destroy the planet.
I think Bush is a lunatic, he is trying to turn the US into a George Orwell "1984" Big Brother state; trying to rewrite the Geneva Convention on Prisoner abuse - Now he wants new Nukes?

Posted by: Richard at March 13, 2007 08:19 PM

Do you two or three here that I see posting, actually believe that "man" is orchestrating what goes on in the world?

Judgment Day began in 1988. The Latter Rain began in 1994. The end of time and the trial begins in 2011.

Read The Bible
Read The Bible
Read The Bible

Very Truly yours,

Dan Hall
www.ReadTheBibleNetwork-DanHall.ws
www.DanHall-SupportsOurTroops.ws
www.GasolineIncome.com

REF:
www.FamilyRadio.org

TIME HAS AN END

Posted by: Dan Hall at March 13, 2007 08:08 PM

Wow Jim,

With friends like yours I hardly need to say too much, but what about emigrating to a more peaceful, saner place than the United States?

Your friend Gen Puckett sees the US as part of biblical prophecy – Armageddon anyone? You’ve got the nukes to do it. I’m not too sure what to make of the rest of the post – but I am sure it is profound- perhaps some of those tranquilizers that Gen talks about might help me to become enlightened. Do they give you visions as well?

And then there is Joel Shock MTC/SS USN (Ret) This gentleman furthered his career as a nuclear weapons specialist to bring about world peace. I wonder what George Orwell would make of that? But lets get down to his arguments.

“I am a fanatic” And exactly how does Joel sort that out from my post? I expressed an opinion which is shared by most people in the world that nuclear weapons are things that we don’t need, and said that I would like the United States to give up theirs. Nothing too fanatical there. Perhaps you or Joel could define exactly what was fanatical in my posts – or was that just a straw man?

“…if the US had NOT used the weapons that the GERMAN scientist had developed (that you somehow seem to think you should personally own).”

No Joel. I said no-one should own them. The last thing I want for Christmas is my very own nuke either nicely wrapped or delivered by one of your special delivery systems. And the German Scientist (I assume you mean Einstein) made it clear that it was the biggest mistake he had ever made. If you are talking about von Braun, well if the United States wants to use Nazi war criminals to build weapons of mass destruction, what would you expect?

Joel, you might want to read the article I cited in my second post which made a strong argument that the nukes used on civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were more to signal to the USSR that you had the weapons, than to stop the war.

“I am pretty sure any of you or me would not fit the blonde hair blue eyed super-race he was after so this discussion would be a mute point if the US and it's "unpopularity" had not intervened.”

Please Joel. The United States came into the second world war two years late, and was unpopular because it was not willing to intervene before Pearl Harbour. Yes there was some covert support for the war by Roosevelt, but there were many opposing him, and many of those supported the Nazis.

Hitler himself was of course neither blond nor blue eyed, and I am yet to meet any Japanese person who meets this description.

Isolationism.

This post is getting long, so I won’t go into that part of your post, but Joel, the United States does not have trillions of dollars to do with as it will. China and Japan has trillions of dollars of your debt. Your budget is in dire straits. Read the papers today, and see what is happening to your stock market, and hear the pop of your housing bubble. You are a debtor nation, and even if you tried to close your doors, they would be trampled down by your creditors. By the way your country was in credit, before your great president George W Bush.

And then you Jim!!! Did you take some of Gen’s tranx after your first post to me? Perhaps staying in the madhouse is best after all. The tranx must have worn off in your next post, but please don’t take them again, especially if you’re near nukes. The last part of your post sounded deeply disturbing – just the sort of thing a fanatic might say as he let loose the nukes.

Posted by: bowie54 at March 13, 2007 05:40 PM

Jim I gotta agree with you, nukes unfortuantly in most cases are here to stay and we should work with our allies to make sure nobody uses them on each other. Also Iraq, it isn't a question WILL Iraq colapse if we pull out, its a question of WHEN, and if it would, then we'd likly have anouther 9/11. People always seem to blame the president for whatever happens, and only if it's bad, Bush is here to stay for a little longer and he's going to make sure he does his job. I don't mean to sound mean or anything, but most democrats don't understand anything with goverment, if they increase minimum wage, they increase taxes and the value of the dollar will dramaticly fall, and they don't understand tactics, if we pull out of Iraq, or stop pressuring Iran & N. Korea then thats going to leave us open for many, many attacks worse than 9/11.

Posted by: Cody at March 13, 2007 04:20 PM

Sorry if I offended anyone's sensibilities. Nukes are here to stay. We can't just go back and change all of history, but we can do our best along with our allies to ensure nukes stay out of the hands of people who appear to be insainly set on destroying thier percieved enemies. I wish we could have peace all over the world, but that's not possible. Right now, some people think our president is doing things wrong. That's not the way the majority saw it the day after 9/11. He had to act quickly and decisively and did so showing great leadership. Now some want to bale out when the going gets rough. We as a nation supported him the day after 9/11. He needs our support now just as much as he did the day after 9/11. If we were to leave Iraq in the next year, it would collapse and fall into the hands of another tyrant. Our president is not a quitter and he won't leave Iraq to the wolves. I sincerely hope that our next president will be as careful as Bush about the withdrawal timing.

Posted by: Jim Stephens at March 13, 2007 03:41 PM

However much I wish to disagree with you Bowie, I do agree. There are a lot of things wrong with America (then again it is a very large country).

Wow. Jim Stephens..

"based on biblical principles and good ole' fashioned sanity is the way to go"

And that's what starts prejudices.

Posted by: Kakeru at March 13, 2007 02:40 PM

Bowie,
I'm sorry for hurting your feelings. It's nice to know there are some "Nut Jobs" out there who monitor military.com trying to further thier cause only to find that our resolve is firm in defeating terror wherever it may be. I live in the greatest country on earth. I've been all over the world, but for me our way of life, based on biblical principles and good ole' fashioned sanity is the way to go. Please stay wherever you are and enjoy the insanity. Regardless of the skewed polls, we do have a great leader. He has the nerve and resolve to face consequences, good or bad in the name of freedom and democracy around the world. Under his leadership, this country is well underway in defeating terrorism. I can't wait to see Osama's demise displayed on CNN just like his demon brother Sadam.
God Bless America!!!!
God Bless our Allies!!!!
We will prevail!!!!!!

Posted by: Jim Stephens at March 13, 2007 02:11 PM

I find it appauling that some fanatics try to tear down the President of the US at every turn. Bowie-You are a perfect example. Even your views would be in japanese or german if the US had NOT used the weapons that the GERMAN scientist had developed (that you somehow seem to think you should personally own). The pressure from the US military in another "unpopular" war (the US did not want to fight in) allowed some of the German scientist to make it to the US with their work (spoken nukes). The "civilians" you refer to in Japan, that continued to fight after their ally Germany fell, supported Hitler and his idea of ethnic cleansing and I am pretty sure any of you or me would not fit the blonde hair blue eyed super-race he was after so this discussion would be a mute point if the US and it's "unpopularity" had not intervened. If it was not for the US playing Big Brother in the world today it would have been nukes instead of fueled passenger planes crashing into our cities. Ask yourselves who is footing the bill to feed countries that have been in the middle of a civil war for the last 20 years like Africa for instance? What is the US getting from that country in return, since the US is supposed to be some greedy monster? Where was all this worldly concern when Hurricanes and snow storms ravaged and destroyed large portion of states inside the US just this past year? Nukes have been out there since the late 1940s, and by the way, the US does not have all of the nukes that are out there. The US can at least account for all of their nukes that they own. The US has always been a target for the worldly vocal minority until a natural disater hits somewhere and then the question is how much will the US foot the bill for these haters with their hands out? Lets play your games and make the US leaders "popular" with everyone. We close our borders, stop all aid outside the US, (including the aid to places like North Korea for 50 billion barrels or crude oil for them not to develope nukes since they have already developed ballistic missiles to put those weapons on. You have fun dealing with those guys on your own.) and become isolationist again. The US president can decide what to do with the Trillions of US tax dollars inside US to feed US citizens who do not have jobs. Rebuild US cities that have been decimated by natural disaters and fanatical racists and let the rest of the world take care of itself with it's "United Nations" that somehow is propped up yet again by the US money and military. Get it through your heads people. The president of the US is trying his best to meet the concerns of the world, not just the peoples of the US. There might be some countries that feel slighted because they do not get more from the US but look at the US congressionally approved budget and ask yourself where a Trillion US tax dollars go? The US president approves checks daily to help others in need and yet he is "unpopular" in the world. I did not like getting shot at by men wearing womens robes when I was deployed but I did love my job and respect my leaders even if I do not agree with some of their decisions. I know that they are made with a greater good that I might not know about so I trust my leaders since I voted for them. I furthered my career as a nuclear weapons specialist jsut to be in the position to help ensure a "world peace" by orders of my President. I did not threaten like some countries do with posturing and bluster about building nukes but through a promise that any country looking to hurt the extended family of the US and it's allies would have great violence visited upon them and I was the one who would get to do it by orders of the same "unpopular" President that has all these opponents out here in the world.

Posted by: Joel Shock MTC/SS USN (Ret) at March 13, 2007 07:29 AM

The President is a good leader some are made about all the tranquelizers they have to take to sleep at night but owell those are the meds of choice for now. The United states is apart of biblical prophecy like Israel-Jewish people are disperced thru out the would everyone cannot just crash in there we have to watch imagine how many mega structures it would take to house all twelve tribes of Israel. Why do we fight each other by the way the twelve tribes of israel spread through out the world thats everyone? We come from Father Abraham any how another brother was saved to day he chose to go to Heaven he has Eternal Life symbols tatooed all over him but I had to explain what his tatoos mean like the scareb beatle.

Posted by: Gen Puckett at March 13, 2007 06:09 AM

Jim,

Lets go through your points one by one:

"We (That is I - He is not my President)have a great president."

I think that is a minority opinion even in your own country. The last polls I saw showed that less than 40% of those in the US thought he was a great president. Most people had no faith in him at all.

Have a look here for the great presidents job rating:

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

"your disrespectful tone towards his religion is appalling"

Exactly what is disrespectful? His supporters on the religious right would have no problems being called fundamentalist (in fact the term was coined in the United States by christian fundamentalists, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist) and so I am sure he would have no problems with the name either. So what are you getting at here?

Is it something to do with what your politicians have been trying to make the word into when it is paired with muslim? Remember it is an american word, coined by your coreligionists.

and this:

"Yes we unleashed a horrible weapon in the 40's, but the result was exactly as intended. Our nation was made safe again and who knows how many lives were saved on all sides.We are now friends with a former foe, because they had the sense to realize their mistakes and get in line with a nation that wants what is good for the world."

hmmmmmmmm. Where do we start with this one. Perhaps with Einstein "'I MADE ONE great mistake in my life, when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made..." but then again he was a pinky lefto, so perhaps not... what about Oppenheimer...no you made it clear he was another pinky lefto in your fifties show trials. So many pinky leftos in the US...

What about an article that appeared in the Boston Globe just recently. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0806-01.htm.

that might help you to see that most poeple do not support your view on Hiroshima.

Many would call it a war crime but then again you have made it so that alone in the world, excepting that other bastion of freedom - Libya - the United States cannot be brought before the International War Crimes Tribunal. You really choose your friends well.

But then again you don't want your crimes in Iraq to be brought before the International Community for judgement do you? To get an idea of what those crimes might be you might be interested in this site:

http://www.thebukowskiagency.com/The%20Deserter's%20Tale.html

Read it and weep for your once great and generous country.

Posted by: bowie54 at March 13, 2007 12:03 AM

Bowie, we have a great President. Your disrespectful tone towards his religion is appalling. Yes we unleashed a horrible weapon in the 40's, but the result was exactly as intended. Our nation was made safe again and who knows how many lives were saved on all sides.We are now friends with a former foe, because they had the sense to realize their mistakes and get in line with a nation that wants what is good for the world.

Posted by: JIM STEPHENS at March 12, 2007 11:02 PM

Question: which country is the only one to use nuclear weapons against civilians Answer
The United States

Which country is actively planning to use nuclear weapons against a country which does not have them?

Answer:The United States

Which country has a religious fundamentalist leader with access to thousands of nuclear weapons, and who is actively planning to use them?

Answer: the United States

And then you wonder why people fear and loathe your country. Your leaders cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons, and they need to be taken from you, and the sooner the better.

Posted by: bowie54 at March 12, 2007 10:00 PM

Im all for anything that keeps our nation safe. I do feel that our current stockpiles being updated or modified from time to time is a valid requirement which should not be looked on as an intimidation ploy. We are a responsible nation.

Posted by: JIM STEPHENS at March 12, 2007 09:03 PM

This is for those who forgot to study history, expecially you *=ACE=*

A show of strength is a deterrent. It matters not what form it comes in. Like it or not, nukes are out there. Managing the nukes we have is important and giving away the ones we have is not only impossible, it's pointless.

As I pointed out earlier, human beings find lots of ways to kill each other. Show me where having nukes has caused more deaths. If anything, they have stopped large-scale aggression. That's what the cold war was all about. And until there is a replacement for them, nukes will continue to be the number one deterrent from those who would have us go away.

And for those who have any doubts, answer me this. Why, in this day and age of instant information, micro-technology and designer vitamins, is the U.S. still unable to cope with the number of people who want to come here from other countries? Hmm ... maybe because the countries they are in fail miserably when it comes to the human condition. Why would our enemies want to do away with us? Hmm ... maybe because we make them look bad in the eyes of their own people.

As long as we exist we are a burr under the saddle of every two-bit deranged dictators that exist, just because of who we are. History has shown us that wars have begun for less than that. So until such time as every citizen of every country in the world enjoys that same basic freedoms that we do here, we are at risk from some looney tune that would bring us back to their level to justify their own existence.

But hey, don't believe me. Just take a look around. Better yet, why don't you travel around a bit and check it out. I've traveled in my share of third world countries and lived in four for more than a decade. I know what I'm talking about. Why don't you check it out for yourself?

Posted by: JCM at March 12, 2007 03:38 PM

Boy are some of you off base. How do you think we won the cold war? It wasn't through playing games like you see on TV. We was through people like me standing the watch for the last 21 years on a TRIDENT submarine. The Tip of the Spear. Sometimes at hightend DEFCON for what ever reason. The threat of mutual destruction actually worked back then and will continue to work. Yes, the threat of the cold war was different. Today we have radical extremists that would love nothing more than to gain power through the use of (read into this - ON the USA) Nuclear Weapons. And will die for the cause, but having the security to counduct a counter-strike ensures they think twice before using NUCs themselves. Look, Our fleet of NUCs are getting older. older means possibly not as reliable. Equipment and delivery systems get old and worn out. They need to be replaced....And yes, that means the Nuc itself has a shelf-life, so it too needs to be replaced. The USA IS a world power, and we must continue to be a world power. We will never enter a fight to protect our rights and way of life with roses and gifts. We must continue to have muscle behind our words or we will no longer be the free, strong, world power that we are. - Just my opinion.
TRIDENT Submarine Naval Officer

Posted by: Leo at March 12, 2007 02:30 PM

Lori,

My Dear, thank you for being sensitive to people who do have handicapped children.
Please, go ahead and dazzle us with your all brilliance.
You appear to be quite versed in National Security issues and International Politics.
I am all ears...........................

Noel

Posted by: Noel Torres at March 12, 2007 01:29 PM

We are entering into a new age of technology that makes nuclear power obsolete. I don't know why our energies for those deveopments for better technology are being derailed just because the big kid on the block want's a better block-buster. (say that five time's fest.) We don't need to nuke our kid's back to the stone-age just because our higer up's are at a loss for intellectual development's instead of digressing to almost a hundred year's of old school mentality and inferior war fair. Here we all are trying our asses of to better our enviroment and now this guy wants us to support nuclear arms development again? WE DO NOT NEED NUKES IN THIS WORLD ANY MORE!!! Next thing you know, he'll be putting control of those nukes in the hands of monkeys. Oh ya, we where there, and did that, that did'nt work either. I'm no passafist, but I am a naturalist, I had eight years of active service, some of which was spent in hostal theater's. We should spend our effort's in way's other than makeing our world as we know it GLOW!

Posted by: D- at March 12, 2007 11:24 AM

I think we are a little off point here. This is supposed to be a discussion on a new generation of nuclear weapons
In our nation's history we very much did need nuclear weapons. I will even say that it was VITAL to our country's security. At htis time I do not see the need. We have technology we could not have concieved when we produced the last generation of nuclear warheads. I do not see a need for them now. There are very effective conventional options available.
The United States is currently the world leader. We need to lead by example. I would suggest we phase out all nuclear weapons.
Retired army officer and current U.S. Army weapons developer.

Posted by: John at March 12, 2007 11:23 AM

didn't we learn are lesson from the Cold War? this is just going to lead to more hostle action toward the U.S. Also, why should Prez. Bush get all up in Iran's, and N. Korea's face about devoloping nukes when that is what we are doing. People the signs have been all over the place, whatch for more violence that MIGHT just lead up to a 2nd cold war, or even WW3.

Posted by: *-=ACE=-* at March 12, 2007 10:15 AM

Peace cannot be acheived through war. It has to be taught. Maybe our government should spend our money on teaching the nations a peaceful solution, instead of blowing them up.
www.peacefulsolution.com

Posted by: Karatyah at March 12, 2007 08:19 AM

James Brent -

You didnt read the article....

Posted by: Shooter at March 12, 2007 08:01 AM

Why is the U.S. bulding Nuclear Weapons? I'm at a loss here. The U.S. expects other countries not to build "Nukes", but the U.S. is building them. What am I missing?

Posted by: James Brent at March 12, 2007 01:57 AM

Winning an argument in here would be like winning in the Special Olympics...

Even if you WIN...you're still retarded!

None of you can spell, form sound ideas, or use correct sentence structure. How are you going to possibly convince another person of your viewpoint, when you write as if your IQ was 80?

Posted by: Lori at March 11, 2007 09:35 PM

Aging nukes are dangerous. With uranium prices rising from dozens of new plants coming on line from emerging markets its is very smart to hit two birds with one stone and not Panic the public. We need to re-craft our weapons to make them efficient stable and take the bulk of the leftovers and power our nations energy needs. Oil is not the only resource getting hard to produce and without energy any county falls. Our enemies are taking advantage of our Achilles heal.
Its not rocket science :-) ex-UASF

Posted by: George at March 11, 2007 08:10 PM

The word FACT is a dirty word. Some of you need to learn the definition of what a FACT is, and CONVERSELY what an OPINION is. They are are not equal. They are polar opposites.

Posted by: James at March 11, 2007 07:33 PM

Some of you really do need to get your facts straight and what in the hell does religion have anything to do with building nukes... and by the way those who say President Bush is a terrible president just because he wanted the oil. If we wanted oil, they would have taken in in Kuwait or Afghanistan back in the previous war. And those who say that the corrupted politicians and blah blah blah your full of crap stuff. Okay, say we take over, then what? who will run the country. Think some of you could... heh most of you have no f-in clue It would be just another war to try and figure out who the damn leader would be. And history repeats itself so some of you pricks really need to look into your history and news more before you go judging. And one more thing.... THE FOUNDING FATHERS WROTE THE CONSTITUTION WHEN THEY COULDNT EVEN COMPREHEND THE POWER OF A NUKE AND HAD NO IDEA IT WAS POSSIBLE.... SO ITS OK TO MAKE SOME NECESSARY CHANGES AS NEEDED TO ADAPT TO OUR CONDITIONS TODAY.

Posted by: anonymous at March 11, 2007 06:39 PM

Call it religious or fanatism, nothing is going to change the trajectory of this governments. I am worry about those who blindfold themselves and do not want to see the truth...Jesus the Christ our Lor and Savior can change your trajectory. I am not worry at all about the future.

Jlopez Eng

Posted by: Juan at March 11, 2007 06:02 PM

"I suggest you read you Bile" Dena - you better check yourself...

Posted by: James at March 11, 2007 05:35 PM

Pres. Bush has it right. We are to fight evil"Satan" as long as we are a notion. We are to protect Israel, God's chosen people, for as long as we live. The evil one's leader, the anti christ will come out of the area that we are fighting from, so it is best that we keep him and his followers at bay. If you don't believe any of htis, I suggest you read you Bile, it's in there and it is all coming true, as predicted as far back as 6 thousand years ago, when God created man.
I too, believe the weapons were there, and as the satelites showed, the movement of caravans while we kept giving them one more chance to comply, they moved them into Syria, probably the seat of Satan, the antichrist, that is. Fight them there or fight them here, it's coming either way. The only way to get out of this world and not suffer eternally is to know JESUS as your savior! The only one who can save you!

Posted by: Dena at March 11, 2007 05:16 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=

Posted by: McLaren at March 11, 2007 04:35 PM

Matt F.

I respect your religious stance and opinions but we are not all Bible "thumpers", and at the same time no less human than thou. Religion is one of the reasons the world is in the mess its in right now. The other is "corporatism". You existence for being as a US Citizen is to provide for the corporations. When was the last time you bought a car with 100% of your hard earned money. Why do have to work for a company to have affordable health insurance. And again on the religious note, your religion is no more right or wrong, true or false than the next guy's. Why are we aligned with Saudi Arabia, they are not a democratic society, and barely above fully corrupt. Im fine with maintaining our weapons for same reasons I change my oil in my car, but man, save the "burning bush" rhetoric for an assembly of your religious faith.
This country is a mess no matter how you look at it whether you are democratic, republican, (libertarian like me), or anything else. Our forefathers, gave us a Constitution that has been corrupted, abused, downplayed, and outright amended to the point that they would wishing that they had never bothered. Its time this country was taken back from all politicians, lobbyists and corporate monsters.

Posted by: James at March 11, 2007 04:17 PM

I say hoorah. It's only a matter of time till Iran,China,Russia,South America comes after us.

Posted by: achilles at March 11, 2007 03:52 PM

ofcourse they have WMD..the tecnology today alows even average citizens to use google programs that use satelites to zoom in on any one particular house anywhere in the world, just punch in the address, can you imagine what the government has?? they have nukes!!
granted someone screwed up when it came to finding them..doesnt mean they are not there...
why shouldnt we have the Bigger Better Deal?? personally i wouldnt trust those arabs with safety sizzors.. and when i was in kindergarden and a kid had a pair o those and threatened to stab me with them, id say 'OK' and get the ginormous pair from the teachers desk and say 'lets dance fucker!' why shouldnt we upgrade??

Posted by: Talkalot at March 11, 2007 02:13 PM

to ScB

whoever thinks that you can't talk to God is a blasphemer, 'cause I talk to Him all the time. I never implied that God "spoke" back, but perhaps President Bush asks for signs, and, oh, I don't know, recieves them! How many times in the Bible did God send men into battle, and tell them to destroy everything and leave nothing alive. So you see, as America is one of Israel's biggest,and only, allies, perhaps fighting her enemies, and finding new ways to protect her is not so out of line.

Posted by: Matthew Flournoy at March 11, 2007 02:11 PM

to those of you who think you know nukes shut the fuck up cause, i was a nuclear weapons supervisor when i was in the navy. the nukes need to be inproved and safer for us, not the ones were nuking so i say it's a good idea and fuck the rest of the world !!!!!!!!!

Posted by: stevewally57 at March 11, 2007 01:57 PM

i believe that if shit ever hits the fan i don't want to be caught with our pants down, and if the democrats what to yell at us for our nuclear program they should go have a talk with Korea or Iran.

Posted by: jim at March 11, 2007 12:05 PM

Why not upgrade now? We stick our heads in everyones business, trying to run the world. It's only a matter of time until everyone comes after us. With that said, keep your pepper spray nearby.

Posted by: randy at March 11, 2007 11:17 AM

Everyone gets so heated in their opinions with Iraq. This is a nuclear weapons upgrade post, and you guys found a way to turn it into another Iraq forum...................hmmm kinda like the democrats in congress, doesn't matter what the issue is, as long as they can find someway to get back to the only issue they even bother to pay attention to (and they barely pay attention to that, like how when Gen. Petraeus gave a status of Iraq speech last week and not a single congressional democrat attended) then somehow they seem like they know about every issue.
Sounds retarded kinda...............but more people die a year of heart disease then die in Iraq, so should i clog up a forum about nuclear weapons with information about heart disease? NO and neither should you ALL.

But I think the upgrade is a good idea, if we are going to have nukes, we should at least have safer nukes that don't have cracks or any of the other problems that our weaponry is currently faced with.

Posted by: Mitch O at March 11, 2007 08:12 AM

For what it's worth. I don't really support "upgrading" nuclear weapons, but I do understand the truth behind the whole concept. The fact is that a nuclear weapon hasn't been used against humans since WWII, and at the current time all a nuclear weapon really is, is a giant "don't fuck with me or I'll blow your ass and your whole family's ass to hell" sign. So really, they're bargaining chips. As if to say "You got beef? I got chicken! Whassup now?!"

Posted by: Justin at March 11, 2007 05:58 AM

There truly is nothing more repulsive than those who use the line "...I'd rather fight'em there then here..."

Truely, this person has no idea of the concept of how modern wars are fought. 9/11 showed americans what most of us in uniform already knew, war at any scale is ugly and deplorable. Civilians that support a soft line in dealing with foreign threats should wake up and pay attention. The attitude that we would be left alone if we just stuck our head in the sand, is one of contemptible ignorance, and we paid the price for that. Making matters worse, those families demanded that our government pay them, some receiving more than a million dollars at tax payer expense, because they were victims. Those of us that actually are willing to stand up for ourselves and our country will only get what we pay for in life insurance benifits. I truely regret the suffering and loss of life that day. As a serviceman, those attacks were a blow to my pride and professionalism because myself and my "Brothers in Arms" had the Watch, even if the instruments to counter those terrorist were in the hands of elected officials playing politics and "playing nice" so nobody had their sensibilites offended. History will prove we will make this mistake again, in the interest of preserving our civil liberties. But if you are repulsed by those of us that would rather "fight'em there then here...", I suggest you move to where ever "there" happens to be because I'm tired of supporting with my tax dollars and occassionaly putting my life at risk for MY country so blubbering idiots can tell me how repulsed they are. But hey, it's your freedom of speech, just remember, if you're not willing to also use your right to bear arms, it might be better to just keep your trap shut.

War is an ugly thing no matter how you look at it. Lives are lost, families are distroyed, dreams are shattered. This is more true if you happen to be the innocent bystander while war happens around you and your family. To protect those innocent lives many americans volunteer to wear the uniform of their country and actually take a stand to protect those innocent lives as well as our own families. Being proactive in defense and not waiting for a self proclaimed enemy to strike first in my house is paramount to protecting all that I hold dear. If it means going back to Iraq, well, been there 3 times already, I still say it was worth it to keep my family from having to endure what myself and my Brothers-in Arms had to endure. I'd do it again to keep those lunitics out of America.

"War is best played as an away game because bullets and bombs don't care if you're on a team or just living next to the stadiem."
Author Unknown

Posted by: Ken M at March 11, 2007 12:45 AM

There truly is nothing more repulsive than those who use the line "...I'd rather fight'em there then here..."

I hope you got the MOS you wanted because it would be such a shame if you got stuck back in Kuwait as a quartermaster or some shit loading MRE's into trucks for your "Brothers in Arms".

Posted by: James at March 10, 2007 09:46 PM

FACT: Bush - "We are not in the nation building business..."

FACT: No weapons of mass destruction of any real capacity were found. Publicly admitted by current
administration officials

Corollary: If they were found, as some have stated, they are now destroyed.

Conclusion: We are in the nation building business and it is quite sad when our elected leaders leader cant admit their ignorance, their mistakes, and their guilt.

Posted by: James at March 10, 2007 09:20 PM

Looking left, you see what's to the left.
Looking right, you see what's to the right.

All beings form habits of action influenced by subjective feelings and affections based on ignorance of the essence of awareness.

Posted by: James at March 10, 2007 09:01 PM

Now people are coming out saying we do not need any more nuclear weapons, and that is true. If anyone actually reads the story at hand they will notice the current weapons are being replaced by the new design. A nuclear bomb is a nuclear bomb, but how the it is delivered and detonated depends on the rest of the weapon. So, there must be some difference in the new weapon to ensure we never have a situation as depicted in "Dr Strangelove or how I learned to love the bomb and stop worrying." Granted, that was fiction, but there needs to be safegurads to ensure only one person can order the weapon to explode. Also, Saddam Hussain had and used Weapons of Mass Destruction. The UN inspection teams managed to eliminate them, but Saddam would not allow the inspectors to finish their job, and verify the weapons were destroyed and no new ones were being built. Saddam still had equipment for making new ones, which he would have done if the UN resolutions would have been med and removed from Iraq. It is time to stay and finish the job, which can only be done if the Iraqi people are willing to do. Please remember, they had been under Saddam's control for a very long time and do not know any other way. Forces outside Iraq are also afraid that Democracy will spread and remove their power.

Posted by: Dave at March 10, 2007 08:37 PM

Dave in WA, you are right on my brother.

Most Americans are too weak to stomach the sacrifices that must be made for our liberties.

Posted by: James A. Martin at March 10, 2007 08:10 PM

People !!! NO My Fellow AMERICANS (military or militia or civil), PLease for your own and your childrens sake GROW UP!! DO you really think Our BEFUDDLED GOVERNMENT (who are ONLY Professional Polititians) would EVER drop a NUKE!, that would be absolutely Politicly Incorrect. "They" just need another excuse to add or justify a larger tax base and to SCARE the HECK Out of Society in general, basicly people who are truely Ignorant, because they HAVE NOT ACTUALLY READ OR WATCHED ANYTHING PAST THE DAILY MEDIA (which IS controlled by the "Upper Eschalone") and stuffed down your throte 24/7. Final Words "GET EDUCATED, SEEK THE TRUTH, READ OUR U.S. CONSTITUTION AND YOUR STATES ALSO", and as it does say TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK and put some REAL MEN/WOMAN in Office with some real common sense.

P.S. They don't need Nukes anyway, their doing just fine poising our Air Water and Food supply. Don't think so, when was the last time you or someone you know didn't have some sort of Disease, Illness or Conditition??

Posted by: Fred at March 10, 2007 07:31 PM

Before you bash Bush/Congress Think about our History. People believed that Hitler was harmless, so they waited until he was in their back yards and it was to late!!! In the Pacific we thought that there was no way anyone could attack us to far away. Saddam didn't have any
WMD's We no that for sure now. If we had never kicked his Ass out of IRAQ and he got them we would have alot more dead today. Putting our heads in the sand does not make problems go away. Standing up to them does. Will pulling out of Iraq stop the violence? NO. It will make the US look weak when the going gets tough. We are not cowards although we have some in our mists. Name one country we have not givin freedom too. All this talk about US bad policy. Yea we have made mistakes but the good have always out done the bad. Don't be stupid find the truth for yourself instead of what someone say's. You have the freedom in this country to read and learn and then teach or inform. Just remember:
It is the SOLDIER and not the poet who gives freeom of speech.
It is the SOLDIER and not the reporter who gives freedom to the press
It is the SOLDIER and not the campus demonstrator who gives the right to demonstrate.
It is the SOLDIER who fights under the flag, who salutes the flag, and who's coffin the flag is draped over that gives the protestor the right to burn the flag.
TO All WHO SERVE AND HAVE SERVED THANK YOU FOR YOUR SACRIFICE AND FOR OUR FREEDOM.

Posted by: Dave In Wa. at March 10, 2007 07:10 PM

What ever happened to stepping back from the brink? Or disarmament as laid out by the NNPT?

The only way I'd swallow this "modernization" is if it's accompanied by a significant nuclear "force reduction".

Posted by: Andrew at March 10, 2007 05:58 PM

"any nuclear attack against the USA will result in total annihilation of the attacker!" Any questions???
ANY of you anti-bush/military can move if you dont approve ---lets support our LEADER!!!
Lets make some glass!(if needed)

Posted by: david at March 10, 2007 05:49 PM

For all of you people who think they know why people and goverments do things the reason they are up grading our warheads is because (1) More electronic controls will be added such as a after lanch dissarming switch (so if we for some reason launch one by mistake or the situation changes in flight we don't start WW III or destroy the planet) (2) Our old designs deteriorate over time and need to be replaced so radiation contamination does not occur (3) More presicion guidence and impact to limit collateral damage and enviromental impact.

Posted by: Ray at March 10, 2007 05:45 PM

Whats the point? We don't have enough? Fancier design? Plenty more free land to pollute for centuries to come? The government needs to spend more taxpayer dollars on something we don't need? again? "mine's bigger and newer than yours"? Please clue me in on this one.

Posted by: lzzlie at March 10, 2007 05:11 PM

Saying that Bush has heard from the man upstairs (i.e. GOD) that building new nukes is the right thing to do is absolutely absurd. Whoever believes this is a blasphemer. No one can talk to God. And if he is receiving heaven-sent messages they would be from an angel and then he would be a prophet...is Bush a prophet? I think not.

Posted by: ScB at March 10, 2007 05:06 PM

Upgrading our nukes is a must. This is why. For those of you in la-la land, President Bush does not control the world & we are not the worlds' protector/supplier. Any country has the option to develope nuclear energy - not out problem. But, what we must make the world understand is that "any nuclear attack against the USA will result in total annihilation of the attacker!" Any questions??? Comment: We need to get our own house in order first. If that ever can happen, then we can 'help' other countries/peoples.

Posted by: RNL at March 10, 2007 05:04 PM

only thing i have to say is i think its a great idea. rest of you anti-bush/military can dig a hole and bury yourself already.

Posted by: Navy Nuke at March 10, 2007 04:50 PM

BUSH is nuking futs. For those of you not as intelligent as others, switch the f and n.

Posted by: Darren at March 10, 2007 04:49 PM

I see a comment by what can only be described as a true believer. If President Bush is asking God what he should do, there may be a problem. The god he is hearing from may not be Yahweh. President Bush is in many peoples opinion - one of the anti-Christ's minions. New nuclear warheads? Perhaps President George Bush is attempting to initiate Armegeddon. The actions in Iraq and the middle East have never been about oil, but about serving the interests of the true anti-Christ, the zionists that control apartheid Israel. Iraq was not and never was a threat to the United States. Invading that country was never about defending the USA from WMD's but about using Americans as cannon fodder for Israel. Nuclear weapons? President Reagan called the whole idea of nukes - Mutually Assured Destruction. If any country starts lobbing those things we will experience the end of the world as we know it. Armegeddon.

Posted by: BCS at March 10, 2007 04:35 PM

Blah ba Blah blah blah blah blAh blaH blah!Blah ba Blah blah blah blah blAh blaH blah DEMS!Blah baBlah blah blah blah blAh blaH blah GOPers!Blah baBlah blah blah blah blAh blaH blah!Blah baBlah blah blah blah blAh blaH blah!Blah Bush baBlah Nukes blah blah blah blAh blaH blah!Blah baBlah blah blah blah blAh blaH blah!Blah baBlah blah blah Clinton blah blAh blaH blah!Blah baBlah blah blah blah blAh blaH blah.........

Posted by: McLaren at March 10, 2007 04:29 PM

I personaly believe that everything President Bush does he asks God's opinion, and when he gets his answer, he takes God's advice. So, when President Bush makes a decision, instead of questioning everything he does, respect his opinion. In other words, shut up and pray for your president and your leaders like the Bible says. Peace Out

Posted by: Matthew Flournoy at March 10, 2007 03:51 PM

So, how is developing a new bomb supposed to help with the impending doom before us? In 6 months the WHOLE Islam faith will begin to get them to the cells throughout the United States. If one of the Muslim aren't active they still are Un-American. They cannot be trusted. They will lie to your face. It is their way. Their religious belief say it's ok. Get ready America They say they will have us for breakfast before we have them for lunch.

Posted by: Darin Dunkin at March 10, 2007 03:15 PM

Casper

Look up liberal and conservative in the dictionary .. do you know what the words really mean?

Posted by: Ron at March 10, 2007 02:35 PM

WOW! A new nuclear warhead. The picture of the explosion is truly beautiful. So why can`t we use the money and minds it takes for this to find cures for the horrible diseases people face every day to help mankind instead of ways to eliminate it? Man has seldom made a weapon he didn`t use, so if we must have it, use it, and bring our sons, daughters, mothers and fathers that are dying around the world, home. Don`t get me wrong, I`m all for protecting our own, but some of this (Afghanistan, Irac, etc) is just going on too long. No sense in our kids dying when we have this kind of power to stop it. Look at the lives of our soldiers we saved in the long run in Japan. So use it and get it over with.

Posted by: Jerry at March 10, 2007 02:32 PM

For Caspar:

I'm fresh off active duty and I can tell you that your blessed troops are dying for something but it's not our freedom. Also, this war in Iraq doesn't now nor has it ever had a chance of being fought over here. Lastly, liberals aren't the only ones being critical of these recent decisions. A true conservative would be quite hasty on the decision to spend large amounts of money on a weapon we already have and haven't used.

Get rid of the Ann Coulter book under your pillow and replace it with a Bible. God Bless.

Posted by: Josh at March 10, 2007 01:04 PM

To Caspar - I understand you feel strongly about your views. However, a couple of problems with your logic. First, while Congress does appprove or disapprove the budget for Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore, the President signs the bill once passed. So, the buck stops with the President, not Congress. Second, this President has been in office for 6 years now. Long past is the time of cleaning up the previous President's mess. While I don't blame this President for everything, after all, we did have a completely Republican-controlled Congress, the buck stops with the President. As for these new nukes, why do we need them? We have the number one military force in the entire world. The problem is when the country's leadership, and I mean the idiot Democrats we elected as well as the Republicans, gets us into civil wars, such as Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, which are none of our damn business. I would personally like to see the money we're spending on developing new nukes to go towards veteran's healthcare. As a vet who has had to rely of the VA healthcare system in the past, I think we could do a lot better for our former and returning troops.

Posted by: John at March 10, 2007 10:55 AM

First, Our country wants to blame the man in office. Try putting some of the blame on congress and also try to put the blame on the last President.
Once the President signs an agreement the following President has to honor that agreement, so you can't always play the blame game. It is taking the current President to clean up the others mess.
Two, The war in Iraq, would you rather have the war fought here in the United States? I'd rather NOT!!!!
Three, New Nukes. YES! We do have nukes BUT look at all the new weapons that have been produced to protect our troops. So, THEY can save our kids, Parents, Brothers, Sisters and so on who are doing the fighting.
IF and only IF the new model can save our lives so be it and ONLY if the old nukes can be disarmed and disposed of safely!
I am an American FIRST. I love my country and I love my goverment. We may not agree with everything that our government does but before you criticize check out all the facts before YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH!!!!
To all you HIPOCRITS ooops I mean LIBERALS, try pulling your heads out of your bottoms and get some fresh air and remember that our troops have fought and some have died for you to voice your opinions and no matter how you are FUCKING UP things you still have that right to get stupid and open your mouth to make your opinions heard because of the decisions our goverment has made to protect our rights and freedoms. Now our freedom of religion is under fire because of Athiest liberals are getting stupid!!!
BUT these are just my thoughts and my opinions, so people LETS start using our freedom and our rights and Protect our future OR there will BE no future for our Children!

God Bless our Troops
and even the Idiots

Casper

Posted by: Casper at March 10, 2007 10:34 AM

first off I want to say I am not and have not surved. Not because I didn't want to because I couldn't. But on the topic of these new war heads? Is there nothing better that our goverment could spend our hard earnend tax $ on? HMM I'm thinking that they might want to hold off on buying a few and sink some bucks in to Walter Reed. That's just me thinking.
I also would like to say thank you to all that are surving home and abroad.

Posted by: Chris at March 10, 2007 10:20 AM

New Nukes?!?! What we have is good enough! If it ain't broke...don't fix it!

Whew, what a load of my chest. Now on to a question I have for you guys...since you all seem to know everything about everything...where can I get some new vacuum tubes for my TV? It may take awhile before I actually see your answer because I'm on a 386 33 MhZ PC with 2 MB Ram running Windows 3.1 with a 14.4 dial up modem.

Posted by: Dave at March 10, 2007 08:54 AM

To David, dude I feel your pain with Lori but before you pop off on someone protecting the intelligence of service people(representing) and I commend you for this. BUT you yourself need to check your spelling.

Posted by: Rob at March 10, 2007 08:44 AM

To Lori,

Pleazze Lori halp uss wear stuk in iraq, sound familiar. I have a double major, and i do have a clear understanding of what intails i work in such a facility. So don't be to quick to critacize. I didn't have all the time in the world to check everything i work 16 to 18 hours a day protecting people who think people in the millitary are less educated

Posted by: David at March 10, 2007 03:54 AM

I dont under stand why this top secret info is on the net. Isn't anything classified anymore

Posted by: jessie...Mstgny..Ret..USMC at March 10, 2007 01:54 AM

My bad! I meant to say that it is possible the newer warhead might have a smaller yield (but I don't know for sure as I'm not a LLNL engineer), not smaller footprint.

True, there are other effects from the detonation of a warhead, but the main concern is to hit the target and stop the enemy's strategic arsenal. Can't comment on accuracy (that's the truly classified stuff) so I won't go there.

Good point that we don't know if the bomb will actually detonate, but that's why we continue to test them annually with the exception of the nuclear package.

However, the bottom line is that they are aging and without updates, they may malfunction both during peace time and war. When dealing with nukes, we can't take that chance. Better safe than sorry.

CJS brings up a good point, "its not really the fact that they will or will not go off when fired cause what are the odds of multiple warheads from multiple missiles all failing because of old age?" However, we don't have that luxury anymore as we've actually reduced the number of warheads in our arsenal due to recent treaties (START III I believe). We've actually done a better job of reducing our arsenal ahead of the Russians. Why? Because we are the better nation and we strive to make an example to the world.

Oh, and should that dreadful day every arrive when God forbid they must be used, should the nuke not detonate, they'll still make for one awesome kinetic bomb!

Posted by: Sal at March 10, 2007 01:53 AM

To SAL,

I dont think a smaller foot print really matters when it already affects such a huge radius. upwards of 50 miles from target due to varrious effects of the nuclear weapon

Posted by: CJS at March 10, 2007 01:32 AM

Why is stuff like this even released? Don't we keep any secrets anymore? Like the anti-IED technologies and the latest to defeat the EFP's they're using over here in Iraq...they seem intent on putting articles about it in the Stars & Stripes and little bits on AFN.

Now we're telling the world that we're moving forward with nukes again....and it will bring out the anti-(current administration) nutjobs and give armchair warriors that dream of Utopias, like a post not much further down from here.....it will give them all the more reason to complain and gather influence for swaying votes and policy.

The next time I want to hear about American nukes is when one goes off in Tehran during another of their million-man anti-American rallies.

Until then, the US shouldn't release this sort of info.

Posted by: contractor at March 10, 2007 01:29 AM

It is amazing to me that the powers that be are attempting to sell the need for NEW and IMPROVED nulear weapons to replace the OLD and OUTDATED nuclear weapons. I mean really the ones we have are fine they are accurate to within 2 feet of the intended target after launched. what is the NEW and IMPROVED aspect of them? are they now accurate to within 1 foot of the intended target?

well then some of you say or think "well they are old and we dont know if they will actually go off when launched. they could be dud's. well its of my opinion that there is nothing to say the new and improved ones will go off either when intended. there is no such thing as a perfect circuit and untill it actuall goes off when we fire it no one really knows if it is gonna work.

its not really the fact that they will or will not go off when fired cause what are the odds of multiple warheads from multiple missiles all failing because of old age? it is their potential fear that stays other countries hands when thinking of deploying against us or someone else. do you really think that only 1 bomb or 1 warhead is going to be launched?

people say that well hiroshima and nagasaki the deaths we small compared to that over the entire war. well that was due to the choice of their locations. small reletivly small isands that could show the power of the weapons without causeing the damage on a massive scale that it would have if they droped them on the main land. i applaud the forethought that went into those targets as it really did limit the destruction of a terrible device while showing our enemies that we are now capable of destroying them utterly. that is what saved lives.

Just my opinion mut new is not necessarily better and i feel the money used to devolope these new nulear weapons could be used somewhere else to better effect. just because it is a war doesnt mean we have to make weapons of mass destruction there are plenty other types of artilary that the money could develope. things that we are going to actually use instead of just sitting there.

Posted by: CJS at March 10, 2007 01:28 AM

To educate the uneducated in nuclear tech and strategy:

The updated warhead will not be "larger" but instead, safer and accurate. Our current delivery technology (MMIII ICBM) cannot accommodate a larger warhead as it is not designed that way.

The new warhead is to REPLACE the current one. So once again everyone, we aren't increasing the arsenal or the number of missiles on alert. We're just updating our old stuff which has been around for 20+ years!

Just like when everyone gets a new car, you buy the new one because it's not worn out, will not leak fuel, has side airbags and handles better. Same concept with the warheads! Our military does this with all other weapons too (F-22, improved body armor, Aegis cruisers, GPS "smart" bombs).

In fact, a more accurate warhead can have a smaller explosive footprint and lowers the amount of immediate vicinity damage, taking out the intended strategic target (read WMD targets, not people!).

It's difficult to understand when you don't have all the facts.

Unfortunately... the rest is classified! Have faith and trust in your military and your leaders -- they have more information than you do!

Posted by: Sal at March 10, 2007 12:37 AM

I'm very sorry that most of you feel that developing even LARGER nuclear warheads is the only solution to the multiple and complex problems that the world now faces...

It is my opinion that less money and less resources could be spent more efficiently on restoring peace worldwide...Although, that would mean that a large amount of greedy companies, officials, and lobbyists would have to sacrifice some of their dough...ehhh. Also, the president would have to ACT, uhhh, political and actually sit down with others who have different values and customs than we or he. Is the "TEXAS attitude" really the best choice for a President? Everyone has an opinion, but I don't believe he's all that charismatic. Being a political figure head is ACTUALLY his job preceding the "commander in chief" position, that our military takes orders from.

Before I get started, I'd like to add that I am a proud 8 year veteran of the Navy. I am not disagreeing to undermine the great position of the president, nor his advisors, but I feel that his short history readily tells me that he is a man who is..."quick to jump," rather than THINK about the ultimate outcome of his actions first. I see him as somewhat of a Reckless Man (adolescent minded), most notably for leading our nation into war with Iraq, with absolutely no reason nor plan at all.

Think about this:

*With all of the riches, money, time, and "all around cush" life of Saddam Hussein, do you honestly believe he would have RISKED IT ALL...just to have some laughs by bombing the U.S.?

Answer: Possible...NOT Probable, the man was not stupid. I intently watched the News prior to the war, and I vividly recall Mr. Hussein wanting to debate Mr. Bush, after being accused of having WMD when he argued that he didn't...

...and we never found any

...and Mr. Bush apologized for misleading us on the status of Iraq's WMD, and blamed BAD INTEL a year or so ago

Hindsight...It's 20/20, right? No, there were plenty of individuals who saw through the BS.

*As for the our new WMD?

I would like to hear more opinions...I love when individuals "think" for themselves, no matter what your stance is. My thoughts are...that the NEW Nukes only cause more fear, which turns to hate, which turns into war. War is the military's purpose true, but maybe it's not the Ultimate Answer. Everyone joins for a different reason...I joined to do my part in keeping the Nation safe, but I learned along the way that to completely ensure that, you have to keep peace with your neighbors (other nations).

Posted by: Lori at March 10, 2007 12:00 AM

I'm very sorry that most of you feel that developing even LARGER nuclear warheads is the only solution to the multiple and complex problems that the world now faces...

It is my opinion that less money and less resources could be spent more efficiently on restoring peace worldwide...Although, that would mean that a large amount of greedy companies, officials, and lobbyists would have to sacrifice some of their dough...ehhh. Also, the president would have to ACT, uhhh, political and actually sit down with others who have different values and customs than we or he. Is the "TEXAS attitude" really the best choice for a President? Everyone has an opinion, but I don't believe he's all that charismatic. Being a political figure head is ACTUALLY his job preceding the "commander in chief" position, that our military takes orders from.

Before I get started, I'd like to add that I am a proud 8 year veteran of the Navy. I am not disagreeing to undermine the great position of the president, nor his advisors, but I feel that his short history readily tells me that he is a man who is..."quick to jump," rather than THINK about the ultimate outcome of his actions first. I see him as somewhat of a Reckless Man (adolescent minded), most notably for leading our nation into war with Iraq, with absolutely no reason nor plan at all.

Think about this:

*With all of the riches, money, time, and "all around cush" life of Saddam Hussein, do you honestly believe he would have RISKED IT ALL...just to have some laughs by bombing the U.S.?

Answer: Possible...NOT Probable, the man was not stupid. I intently watched the News prior to the war, and I vividly recall Mr. Hussein wanting to debate Mr. Bush, after being accused of having WMD when he argued that he didn't...

...and we never found any

...and Mr. Bush apologized for misleading us on the status of Iraq's WMD, and blamed BAD INTEL a year or so ago

Hindsight...It's 20/20, right? No, there were plenty of individuals who saw through the BS.

*As for the our new WMD?

I would like to hear more opinions...I love when individuals "think" for themselves, no matter what your stance is. My thoughts are...that the NEW Nukes only cause more fear, which turns to hate, which turns into war. War is the military's purpose true, but maybe it's not the Ultimate Answer. Everyone joins for a different reason...I joined to do my part in keeping the Nation safe, but I learned along the way that to completely ensure that, you have to keep peace with your neighbors (other nations).

Posted by: Lori at March 10, 2007 12:00 AM

Man, how come I have to buy a whole new oilpan just to replace a stripped oil drain plug?

Posted by: James at March 9, 2007 11:37 PM

Ladies and Gents,

I have always considered myself a Patriot. My young and happy butt was loading nukes on the submarines that I served on during the Reagan years, during the Cold War. Here is my two cents worth regarding Nukes.
I don't see any other way to defend this country of ours, against extremists and people with their own agenda of world domination.
Nukes are a necessary evil. For you individuals that difer, all I can say is..........I HAVE NEITHER THE TIME NOR THE INCLINATION TO EXPLAIN MYSELF TO A MAN WHO RISES AND SLEEPS UNDER THE BLANKET OF THE VERY FREEDOM I PROVIDE, THEN QUESTION THE MANNER IN WHICH I PROVIDE IT.....sound familiar. one more thing, if I could have it my way, I would incorporate these lines into the oath of enlistment that we all took.
All you English Majors out there, go ahead and scrutinize the hell out of this................

Posted by: Noel Torres at March 9, 2007 10:13 PM

I have been reading your comments with great interest, and I know where each of you are coming from. Hang in there and keep up the good work. First of all, I would like you to understand that I have never seen a madman at the helm. What we have is a Commander in Chief (United States President elected by the people). Although the opposing political party has consistently bad mouthed his efforts, he continues to stand by his oath to serve the people of this Great Nation. While striving to meet a pre-planned objective in IRAQ, sanctioned by most Congressmen at the time of the IRAQ invasion, he continues to strive to protect Americans here at home from potentially harmfull terrorist attacks.

The potential is real, and if all of the collected intelligence information was revealed to the Nation, I'm sure it would cause chaos or even possible panic in certain places.

Remember, although mistakes may have been made along way, I ask you to remember that there are those IRAQI civilians who wanted to be free to determine their own destiny. Trying to get tribes banded under one free government is a difficult task considering they have had opposing differences for centuries.

I served both during the Korean War and the Viet Nam War so I know what you are all going through.

Blessed are the Peace Makers, for they shall inherit the earth during the Second Coming of the one who controls our lives.

No greater love has mankind, than that he be willing to lay down his life for his friends.

One life lost in War is too many. Regardless of the count, Let the President do his job, and you do the best that you can with your own job. Together, we will perservere. God Bless America, and God bless you all. Remain possitive and know that the people of this great Nation are behind you dispite all of the negativism you hear from various political leaders and the press. Respect your Commander in Chief, as I respect my President. Think about it! Has he commited an impeachable offense? The answer is no!!!!

Posted by: Msgt Chandler (USAF Retired) at March 9, 2007 09:31 PM

Necessary evils will always be surrounded by controversy.

Posted by: creaky at March 9, 2007 09:06 PM

It's no secret to me and many others that nukes are a necessary evil-you have to give a potential enemy the idea that his actions regarding nukes as pure folly and that he will not accomplish his goals regardless of the circumstances. The United States became a superpower because people in high places knew enough to listen to the best and brightest minds available and were not persuaded to look the other way when it came time to open a new page in the history books. Without modernization we cannot accomplish our goals which include keeping the Free World free-Leadership demands that we take action. It is only prudent in this world to have a fully capable, modern and ready armed forces to deal effectively with the threats imposed upon our own society and that of our growing # of allies. To do less is to invite danger-to do more requires vision and a real sense of dedication not just for ourselves but for the Free World too.

Posted by: withheld at March 9, 2007 08:53 PM

To David:

I think you should get an education, before you start commenting on things you obviously know nothing about.

...And use your grammar and spell check

...And try to form sound ideas

Posted by: Lori at March 9, 2007 08:39 PM

David,
Don't be so quick to criticize the spelling of another post without checking your's for errors. It's serving...not surving.

As for the nuclear weapons, I think they are a much needed addition to replace our aging weaponry.

Posted by: Matt at March 9, 2007 08:27 PM

And just for clarrification on a personel view. You might not agree with our presidents policy, but for gods sake if your in the armed forces what did you think you were signing up for. To sit around and play cards. We train for war so that we can goto war. Not we train for peace so we lose at war. whether or not a war is right or not has no validity. We fight to win not to complain and certanly not to loose. Stratigic weapons are here for one reason, to keep the status quoe. If we did not have them we would not be a world power as we are today. So for the people that say we are aggressive and a horrible nation I simply say this to you, "leave go to france, we dont need people like you to bring our morale down, just leave." thats just my two cents, god bless america and god bless our troops.

Posted by: david at March 9, 2007 08:02 PM

The modernized warheads are necessary as our current arsenal is aging.

I have worked in US ICBM testing and operations for 6 years in the military and have a good understanding of their capabilities and current state.

To maintain treaty status, the US will replace aging warheads with the new ones. We will not increase our missiles on alert which is against the treaties we've signed. If you see in the article, they may reduce the number by a few thousand meaning we will have less warheads on alert which is better for us all. How is that possible? The new warheads will be safer and accurate.

The older warheads will be dismantled and disposed of as we've been doing for the older warheads since we began our nuclear program in the late 1950s. Some argue that we should be rid of our nukes, but that is not the best strategy. Remember, Russia and China still have nukes. And many other nations are continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction. The Cold War is over, but in it's wake the war on terror has sprouted many rogue nations.

We should not leave our arsenal in it's current state otherwise we risk having weapons that may not work. With the exception of WWII, we've never used our nukes and I hope we never have to. But in order to ensure that, we must show the world that we have the most accurate, reliable and most powerfully advanced weaponry.

Because of the decisions/mistakes our patriots before us have made, nuclear weapons are a necessity, ensuring our nation's security and stability across the globe.

Posted by: Sal at March 9, 2007 07:59 PM

I'm not how to put this exactly. Well for starters i am a united states sailor and have been surving for a couple of years now. I try to stay away from the political field but when i read comments from people talking about ignorance and they can't even spell or write a complete sentance it makes me laugh. "just saying"

Posted by: David at March 9, 2007 07:57 PM

Another fine example of our leadership. Why dont we just admit that our country is being run by a madman, a loose cannon. How are we ever going to other nations to listen to us if we continuley say one thing and do another. We are supposed to be the shining example for the world. All we are is an example of is unlawful aggressivness. Its already a scary world and we sure as hell dont need more nukes to make it worse.-

Posted by: Pvt. Snuffy from Iraq at March 9, 2007 07:53 PM

Just for clarification in my last post, the 300k-500k who lost their lives in each year of the 90s was due to armed conflict. I'm sure the total number of deaths world-wide is much higher.

Posted by: JCM at March 9, 2007 07:27 PM

Let's take a minute to put this issue in perspective, shall we? The most popular example of why nukes are bad always brings up visions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where an estimated 188,000 people lost their lives. Now then, lets compare that to reality. (NOTE: You can find this information on multiple sources and I'm by no means staking claim to exact figures, just trying to put the issue in perspective.)

It is generally accepted that in WWII approximately 62m people lost their lives, of those 37m were civilians. Having said that, the lives lost to nukes was approx. one half of one percent. I'm sure glad we waited so long to use them. Heck, we could have prolonged the war and allowed another few million people be killed. Please excuse my sarcasm.

Since WWII, countless lives have been lost in armed conflicts of all sizes and shapes, driven by all manner of reasons to justify the deaths. This includes religious and ideological reasons. In the 1990s alone, it is estimated that between 300K and 500k people lost their lives every year, for a total of somewhere between 3m and 5m people. Unless I'm completely off my rocker, not one nuke was used to cause any of these deaths.

So for all you folks who spend so much time arguing about whether are not nukes are relevant to world peace, why don't you start looking at the issues that cause the conflict in the first place, not the weapon used to do the dirty deed? Seems to me that the fear of nukes has saved lives, not caused more. But hey, what do I know, I only learned how to read around 40 years ago. Maybe I missed something.

Posted by: JCM at March 9, 2007 07:12 PM

Complete ignorance, the USA is going through all this trouble to stop other countries from producing there oun nucs, now were turn around and produce new ones of our own, Bush has made many mistakes reently, but this is by far the worse yet, this only shows the world how much the USA is trying to police it, Bush is a hypocrite, and that is an understatement, for once, I dont want to call myself an amarican. Allthough I do fight for our country to keep amaricans safe, I do not fight to push Bush's lawagainst the world.

Posted by: Nick at March 9, 2007 06:59 PM

I worked with nuke weapons during my tour with the US Army, while stationed in Germany during the 70's. I know that the weapons Spall, and have to be cleaned to take the corrosion off. If the newer weapon's don't require a lot of maintenance,
and have a longer shelf-life that's great. This would make for a safer weapon. Then the older ones can be destroyed. I really never had a fear of nuke weapons. They were the safest system I ever worked with. I was proud to be one of the "Keepers Of The Dragon"

Posted by: Terry L. Harris at March 9, 2007 06:57 PM

I lived through the "Cold War", now this brings it all back. If we do not know history we are doomed to repeat it.
This is death to my Grand Child, and I Curse the name of those responsible
GPS

Posted by: Major George P. Shovar, Ret at March 9, 2007 06:51 PM

As much as i try to respect the president this is just stupid, what are we asking for a nuclear war? We might as well go fufill our life goals, maybe evan die along the way, better then radiation poisening(or the initial blast ofcourse) :/

Posted by: Connor at March 9, 2007 06:46 PM

This is completely illegal.

We are signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which, according to Article 6 Section 2 of the US Constitution (which many of us have taken an oath to uphold) is "The Supreme Law Of The Land".

Building new nukes is literally an impeachable offense.

Posted by: Mike V. at March 9, 2007 06:32 PM

MY NAME IS WAR

Know me now and know me well, for I'll be around as long as the hearts throb with greed and the need for power.

And, above all, know me by my right name, which is War. I'm clean and dirty, ugly and beautiful, courageous and cowardly, gentle and brutal. My heart is black and my soul is corrupt, but mostly I'm made of such simple things as sights and sounds and smells and emotions.

I'm a Vietnamese child whimpering in the night for a mother I'll never see again. I'm a shoeshine boy selling dirty pictures on the side. I'm a letter home, a bloody bayonet, a leech that will suck and suck until there is nothing left to take, a stick of gum, a pair of dry socks.
Know me for what I am and rejoice that I am not to be your bedfellow this night.

For I am the salty taste of sweat, the dry taste of fear. I am the pain that rots your stomach when you know that death might come with the next step or the next. I am the saliva that balls up in your throat and chokes back your breath when the firing begins.

And I am the soft night, the warm night, the icy green of a million stars, I am the sound of the sea splashing in gentle rhapsody against a tuning bar of soft sand. But do not be lulled.

For I am the whine of an artillery shell, the thump of a mortar, the roar of a automatic rifle. I am the shriek that rips from the throat of a man whose arm has just been blown apart. And I am the sobs of a boy who has come to realize he walked through a corner of hell - and lived; and aged beyond his years. There's more too, you know.

I am the growl of a bulldozer, the thump of a hammer, a truck loaded with brown, cardboard cartons. I'm traffic, incredibly snarled. I'm a convoy, a barge, a motorbike, a pedicab. I'm a helicopter, a vintage airplane, a sleek jet worth more money than you will ever make in three lifetimes.

I'm a can of C ration heated over a little fire hidden so the smoke won't show. I'm powdered eggs and canned milk and chocolate candy melted into one sticky, brown lump. I'm a hundred one-room shacks with tin roofs standing in a row under the blazing sun.

And I'm a little tired man knee-deep in garbage sifting it for bits of meat and greens. And I'm an old man hardly sleeping at the night. Ghosts crawl over me. I feel them, everyone.

I am the music of the universe, the song of eternity. I am a hill called Con Thien - The Hill of Angels - where the ghosts of a hundred dead men dance each night in the brilliant glow of tracers and mortar fire. I am the olive-drab pouch that holds all the remains of what once was life. And I am a broken heart.

Men may protest the fact that I exist. They may march and beat their chest and send agonizing shrieks toward the sky at what they call the injustice of it all. And maybe they are right or maybe they are wrong.

But I do exist and I am as real as tomorrow's sunrise. It just may be that those who agonize the longest and the lodudest over my being have a real knowledge of what I am.

For if I breed corruption and agony and death, I am also the womb in which is conceived courage and bravery and honor and love. I may be the arm that reaches out to kill but I am also the hand extended to help.

If there is no right and just compensation for tears shed upon some jungle grave, neither is their limit to the price of pride and dignity.

So know me now and know me well. Know me for what I am. The pain I render is unrelenting. The scars I leave are deep.

My name is war.
Be glad I do not hold your hand this night.

Posted by: Sunshine/Rainbow at March 9, 2007 05:37 PM

I agree with the fact that people have the right to defend themselves. I dont belive that nuclear weapons are the way to go, not to say that you should'nt have them. As for countries like China, N.K. and Iran haveing nukes well that just pain stupid. They are the poeple that would like to use them. I dont ever want to see in my lifetime a Nuke used against people, but if those crazy muslims (not the majority i know) decide they want war i truely dont want to see any Canadian or American lives lost over some stupid jihadist that thinks hes better than everyone elce.

one question are old Nukes going to be dismantled with this new weapons stystem comeing in?

regards from Canada

Posted by: Brock Shier at March 9, 2007 05:32 PM

I agree with Mark's comments completely. We are moving into a time of danger and uncertainty concerning known dangers in our world. Updated nuclear weapons will keep us safe and secure and will deter any nation thinking of destroying us or any of our allies. It may come to east against west because of ideaologies and faith beliefs. The United States is a "Nation under God" who supports and believes in the nation of Isreal...God's first chosen people...

Posted by: David S. at March 9, 2007 05:22 PM

Congratulations Mr. President, you and your administration have once again proven what seems to be a foreign concept to all republicans. You are all a bunch of morons.

Posted by: Dizzle at March 9, 2007 05:04 PM

It really does not make any sence to increase our arsenol of nuclear weapon to any more than we have now. Why you ask? well its simple fact that we currently have enough nuclear weapons land based and Naval submarine based to utterly destroy any country or countries that launch an attack on us. with plenty left over to destroy the rest of the world. Making more of them isnt going to make our country any stronger than it already is. when you have enough firepower to destroy the world, it doesnt make sence to doube it so you could, in theory, destroy it twice over.
Personally i think this is a big waste of money that cound be used to any number of better things. Just remember one thing, the entire purpose of having ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads on them is to never have to use them because if a first strike happens we all lose. they are there to ensure mutual destruction on any country that does have nuclear capabilities. to ensure the status quo. they are not there as a means for the untied states to flash in the face of any country that doesnt agree with us or our policies as a show of strength.

Posted by: CJS at March 9, 2007 04:58 PM

John
We exist today because we were willing to develop the nuclear weapon and we had the strength to use it to end a war. Had we not done so, we would not be who and what we are today. You think that Hitler would have not used it on the World? Just think of what would have happened if his folks had developed the bomb. You live comfortable and where you do because of the realities of the bomb being in the hands of the American Arsenal first. You enjoy the freedoms of America, but what sacrifice did you make to earn that freedom. How would you like to live in Russia, China, India, or even N. Korea? Would you still have the means to VOICE your thoughts? There are plenty of crackpot dictators in the world who would just love to have a NUKE in their arsenal for ready use. The only thing that holds them back is the USA and its overpowering response to and stupid event that they may want to do. N. Korea has a low grade nuke for their use now, but even they do not want to use it because of the response that would come from the US. That is not counting Brittain, Australia, France, Ukraine, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, and Israel. Yeah, there are bullies on the street and there are good guys too! It is common knowledge to all, that if you don't want to defend yourself and the police can't be there (UN). Then you can expect the bad guys to come in and steal all you have and enslave your people. Do you think that what Germany, Japan, and later Soviet Russia did was a fluke? All through history there has been only one or two countries standing up to stop such enslavements. Right now it is the US and UK with some help from NATO. Don't see much from Africa, Mid-East Nations, China, Asia Proper, South America, Mexico, India, Pakistan, or Russia do you? When do you think they will work for peace? Only when it is to their advantage and not before! To those of you who are naysayers of NUKE weapons and power, leave the US and go live over there for a while. Learn just how good you really do have it and then realize that it is not just one man who controls our Nuclear Arsenal, but several. Understand that our government does maintain full control over its weapons, but maybe the government of Russia doesn't. Worry more about them than the US. Worry about the good religeon of peace Muslims who would just love to serve one to us because of their hatred for us and our democracy. Sell yourself as a slave to an arab for a few days and learn about life on the low end and the 7th century. Then come home and drive your car, watch your TV, shop at your store, go to your coffee shop, travel to another state, fly in an airplane, teach your kids, hug your spouse (or friend), and decide for yourself what you will do. All of that is made possible by the fact that we as a democracy have Nuclear weapons, Nuclear power, and we have the will to use it like GOD Almighty meant for us to have it. Be very thankful that we are not ruled by a king, emporer, dictator, or Mullah. Be very thankful indeed.

PS - I have sat in on a JCS meeting and listened to the discussion of the use of nuclear weapons as a response to possible use on us. There are no loose cannons in Washington DC. The planners there have numerous controls on NUKE employment and under what conditions. Rules of Engagement are very strict. OH! I almost forgot, do you know that we do not have a hot line with China, Pakistan, India, N. Korea, and Ukraine. We do with Russia, Germany, Brittain, France, and Israel. Wonder Why????????

John

Posted by: John at March 9, 2007 04:58 PM

We need the show of force, those who continue to act as if every nation is not hostile needs their heads examined. There will be no peace, unless we have the arsonal to lay down the law. IF you allow other countries that are hostile to gain nuclear weapons strengths, then we are wrong.
IF we set back and allow this to happen, then we asked for it - then years later after walking around ruble, radiation contamination, or a mixture of radiation and BIO-CHEM - you then will realize what we have been saying all along. WE need to be the power that controls evil.
Even if we extend ourselves to outer space, it is still our mission in the United States to have power and control evil - where ever it is at, and without delay. Our childern will be at the stars - and also saying the same thing, we need to have power and the show of force.
So, if we as soldiers are given a mission to remove evil - then that is our mission, and everyone that is setting back home, complaining should be providing support to our troops.
These days, there are too many Americans complaining, where years ago, it was an honor to fight for our country and our freedom. It will take a war in the United States to bring back that honor and Dedication. We have forgot what a war can do in our home land since the Civil War.
I guess it will take history to repeat itself.

By Code Name KINGRAT

Posted by: Juan Long at March 9, 2007 04:43 PM

I'm sick of all these people saying that they are athiest or agnostic. You believe in something even if it is yourself.

Now on to the Nukes. I have absolutly have no reservations about using nukes. I'm a career Air Force man for 20 years. Everybody now is saying that because we have nukes why not let Iran or North Korea? Well, for the simple fact that they are not us. I don't care about being fair. I care about winning at whatever cost. the only way you will make these Jihadists capitulate is to make war so terrible that they hesitate to go to war with us. That not only means using tactics such as bombing civilians, carpet bombing, napalm, and shoot first tactics, but also nuclear options as well. Make the idea of war so distasteful that they will tremble at the thought of going to war with the US. Right now the US military is thought of as joke world wide. But we don't need respect, we need fear. Make them fear any action against the US. "Any means necessary" should be our motto. Only streagth can save the US.

GOD Bless America.

Posted by: Mark at March 9, 2007 04:21 PM

developing these weapons are crimes against humanity. citizens need to start speaking up, especially soldiers. God bless.

Posted by: dan at March 9, 2007 03:53 PM

Nuclear technology is like the proverbial
Pandora's Box" story. Once you open the box, there's NO going back!. Sure, we can claim that peoples of this world will "dismantle" the existing weapons of mass DEATH, but in the end someone will always keep a copy of the formula to create more.This lack of trust is a normal form of survivalistic behaviour.
ALL THING MUST PASS!

Posted by: Attila911us at March 9, 2007 03:42 PM

Curt,

I'm sure you realize that much of what you see written here is absolutely the appeasement of guilty consciences. As if somehow objecting to something they know nothing about will actually make a difference. I have yet to meet one person, and I've been around, that actually has been in a planning session of the Joint Chiefs, the White House Staff, or any other meeting where issues of our national defense were discussed. So how is it, exactly, that they feel qualified to question and criticize decisions made on information that they do not have? Your guess is as good as mine.

Posted by: JCM at March 9, 2007 03:26 PM

I just thought Id throw in here that this is the action neccessary if the reliability of our current arsenal is actually in question. I remember reading something about that.. Ill have to look it up. But if experts are not even sure they still work, as they do degrade over time, Cycling them out and upgrading them is just taking this into account, though I seriously question the neccessity to flex, or use it as a means to then reasonably demand a similiar openess from other countries. Where does this naivete come from? Its the expectation fo others to adapt our values thats royaly screwing us. They are not going to. Unfortunately if we justify it with detgrading plutonium now, well look weak, so other justifications are neccessary. I say, lets just get our star wars program up and running, then to hell with the crazy people with nukes! I think bush wants to push the button though... and it is funny that christians and jews have this holier then though attitude, as if their beliefs are any more rational then islams... lol. the judeo-christian values crusade (that someone already blatently mentioned on here) is better then jihad only by degree and passive aggressiveness. Bush just needs to bully one of our enemies into using one so he can justify his own actions, like a kid sister pissing off her little brother til he snaps in front of their parents (the UN) then using that to justify hiting him with a baseball bat.. Its sad people are willing to die for this nonsense, nonsense being the whole of contemporary religion, and the results of it (bush's policies, the iraqi war...) Personally, I dont care about the iraqi people. Dont care any more then when I see a bum on the street and dont give him change, and I feel just as guiltless in that as well. The only person responsible for the freedom and happiness of that bum, and the iraqi people, is each of them in turn. It is not mine, it is not yours, but apparently looking good in the eyes of the one true god is enough for many to support all this bs, even if most people that do support it dont have the courage to fight for it themselves. They leave that to our people in uniform who dont have a choice, and tell them how much their service means, despite not even watching the news or showing the value of it to them in anything but words.

Posted by: Curt at March 9, 2007 02:28 PM

To the person who said I'm a national treasure and should be buried I want to say thanks you proved my point. To the other comment do you forget our country is always at war with someone somewhere and there are many black market weapons our country sells to the enemy so we can lose our own family members. I have a poem called war my ex wrote maybe you will enjoy it maybe it will make you mad but he was in Vietnam when they were sending guys to Laos and lying about it and he saw war first hand and will always carry the memories, of what his government did to him before and after the war. I will always listen to the other side even if it is misguided or wrong with respect can either of you say the same? For sometime I have been calling the United States the Untied States not to be disrespectful but because a family can't agree on what kind of pizza they want how can a nation agree on how they will all act and believe? To the comment about the Black Panthers being tortured by their own country, you too have seen the lite. Did we all forget about Ira Hays (msp) who was one of the guys to help raise the flag at Iwo Jima apparently the war was not a good memory for him as he eventually froze to death on the reservation he returned to. I fear only a few people in this discussion get the point that if it takes one weapon to destroy the world do you then ask yourself how many times do I want it destroyed when you build your arsenal??? Who's gonna push the button the second time??? Does anyone who has insight really believe we would be anywhere near that country if it wasn't for the oil??? You may strongly agree with that statement but it won't change reality or bring back all the guys who will wind up just another name on the wall. To those already lost and those we will still lose "It oughta been different." Peace be with you. I will post the war poem soon as I find it. Sunshine/Rainbow

Posted by: Sunshine/Rainbow at March 9, 2007 02:16 PM

So about them nukes

Posted by: ryan at March 9, 2007 01:46 PM

Applicable quotes:

"Not to promote war, but to preserve peace by intelligent and adequate
preparation to repel aggression...to study and confer on the great problems
of national defense, of military science, and of responsible command."

Why don't we leave the job of protecting this country to those who are responsible for doing so. The fundamental concepts portrayed in our Constitution were designed to combat "mob rule" or more politely called "democracy." The problem with the information age is that most people can't handle it, thereby agitating the mob. One could then surmise that most of what you see posted on blogs is the manifestation of that phenomena.

Posted by: JCM at March 9, 2007 01:42 PM

Oh Crissy, Chrissy,

I am hardly offended, and like I said, if you read one of my posts you should read them all. The difference between me and you is that Id go back in a heartbeat if I thought I could make one positive bit of difference in a soldiers life, because like it or not, and I dont, we are there. I dont think you would. So brew and steam in your little world because you cant find it in yourself to walk the line, and you dont feel in your deepest heart of hearts that this really is a good cause. You chant things like "America ... land of the free, home of the brave...like it or leave it" to make up for what you dont know. I dont feel sorry for you, you should feel sorry for yourself...

Posted by: James at March 9, 2007 01:09 PM

You know, I think James is a coward. A yellow coward with nothing to do but strike out in fear at one of the few governments in the world that believes in freedom. We the American people of the United States, have lived in freedom for over two hundred years. We expect it, actually demand it, and bristle at any threat to it. We're complacently confident that it will continue for us and I hope it does (if the ACLU and all the lib dems die off soon, it should, but I digress). But the Iraqi people have never known freedom. They don't know who or what to trust. This concept of "we go in, we kick butt, and we get out" is so asnine. Whoever thought that's the way this war should go is an idiot. Really. We aren't in this for short term gain, but long term growth. It should have been, "We go in. We stay in and prove that Americans don't hate your people. We prove that love and kindness is better than hatred and strife. We prove that following rules of war and helping even our enemy is better than trying to kill everything in sight that is at all different from us. We are here for a few generations, slowly trickling out. Yes, we will lose lives (and my own is forfeit for this goal). Yes it will cost. But if we have HOPE (which so many let go at the slightest bump in the road), we may give Judeo-Christian values a small foothold in a country, no an area, ridden with strife." I think so many people are afraid that their death will be meaningless. I think James is afraid that his death or the death of someone he loves is going to be without a point. It will be, if we jerk our structure out of the amorphouse blob that is currently Iraq because Iraq will collapse into chaos without us. We think it's chaotic now, pull out and watch true chaos. We are doing good there. The smiling faces of the kids (that I so seldom see in the lib media but find aplenty in local pics) tells me so. If five kids grow up loving us and their five kids grow up loving us and their five kids grow up . . . etc, then we have accomplished something. A foothold, or footprint of freedom in an otherwise clueless land. Hang in there John. Don't give up hope, James.

Posted by: Chris at March 9, 2007 12:58 PM

John

Maybe so, but how is that being viewed? American companies creating jobs to make a short-term profit. And all those jobs and jobsites entail and require the use of companies like Blackwater, etc. You need to have armed security to move around, and flying by helicopter is safer than driving. Dont tell me to get my facts straight, until you read further down and see that I worked in Baghdad for 6 months within the past 2 years. Ive seen the nonsense and waste. Ive seen that being there and invading Iraq has no bearing whatsoever on our National Security, Chaplain! Please, so unless, like I said earlier in this thread, you want to spend some time there, save your rah-rah rant for your weekend of drinking beer and watching Fox news.

Posted by: James at March 9, 2007 12:44 PM

Iraq has a population of 19.9 million and an annual growth rate of 3.3%. Get your facts straight. Iraq's economy is growing.

Posted by: John at March 9, 2007 12:23 PM

I am a retired chaplain, and so I have a different perspective than most of what has been posted. There is one reason, and one reason alone why the Islamists do what they do. And it is not because some fundamentalists have "hijacked" Islam for their own ends. Their Koran tells the faithful to Islamize the world. And those who take their religion seriously (fortunately most don't--at least with the Jihad portion of their scriptures) will stop at nothing to show the world that their god reigns supreme. Their view is, "If it takes homicide bombers to do it, so be it. If it takes nuclear warfare to prove our point, that's OK. I'm ready to be martyred for the cause of Allah and Islam." It is a powerful incentive when one mixes violence in the name of religion. (And don't try to change the course of the discusssion by adding in some archiac statement about the crusaders and Chrsitians that happened hundreds of years ago! That was then, this is now!). And given that statement, there is only one way to deal with them--and that is to "change their minds." This may be with the love of the One, True God or it may be, for the protection of our families and our country, to take them out. Make no mistake. Jihad is alive and well in the Islamic world. And Jihad has NOTHING to do with a personal struggle. It has EVERYTHING to do with forcing everyone to live under the tyranny of their religion. The rhetoric about the impoverished Muslims is just that, rhetoric. Bin Laden is (possibly was) a multi-millionaire.

As for N. Korea, Kim Jong Il, in my opinion is just as committed to his agenda as the Islamists are to theirs. And he also will stop at nothing to achieve his ends. But it is a TAD bit unsettling to know that he lives such a posh lifestyle while his own people eat grass--and the leaders train their children that American troops will eat Korean children.

Does anyone honestly think we can truly negotiate with thugs like this, who are either blinded by their own power or are determined to make their sadistic god happy? Since we who are non Muslims are infidels, the fundamentalist Muslims have no qualms about lying to us. It's all about achieveing the goal of Islamizing the world.

The bottom line is that we would be cowards to not do what we can to protect ourselves. Forget the rubbish about leveling the playing field. When it is life or death, and the protection of my country I want to have every advantage to ensure that those who want to start something with us will wish they never had.

Posted by: GAH at March 9, 2007 12:21 PM

Hey Heiko,

The fix is; get out of Iraq. Let the Iraqi government handle the problem. A 10th of the population has fled the country, and the only reason more haven't is because they cant get a passport or have the money to pay someone off. We didnt free anybody, "Iraqi Freedom", what an absurdity. We gave them a living hell. And before you dare call me a liberal dem, you BETTER check all my posts back to the beginning of this thread. It will be a cold day in hell when theres peace there and a hell of a lot of dead Americans.

Posted by: James at March 9, 2007 12:14 PM

I wish we didn't live in a nuclear armed world. But.. you don't want to "bring a knife to a gun fight".

Posted by: Patrick Hudnall at March 9, 2007 12:08 PM

Is it just me or does it seem like the President is throwing all of the nuclear disarmament treaties we signed at the end of the cold war out the window????

Posted by: Robert at March 9, 2007 11:45 AM

Liberal and democratic people such as Dennis are the reason people in the US are so upset over situation abroad. They all focus on negativity and never see the possitive side to anything. You never hear them speak positive about anything the military has done, or even the positive things the Bush administration has done. Our men and women of our armed forces are facing hardships every day yet these people sit in their fancy office belittling everyone but them selves. If they have a fix lets hear and then come and show me how it is going to work.

Posted by: Heiko at March 9, 2007 11:33 AM

For EARL SCHULER and those that agree with him: We get paid to defend the freedoms this country enjoys. We get paid to allow anyone to bitch moan complain and express in any way they feel fit. To scorn on "Dennis'" freedom of speech, and say that you are defending it in the same sentence, is very much hypocrisy. Look at your own ignorance in the matter before you start claiming someone else's. Uphold your professionalism and bite your tongue, because everyone (president or not) deserves to be scrutinized.

Posted by: Andrew at March 9, 2007 11:25 AM

Some of you people posting these are just flat out idiotic. There is a big difference between the Roman Empire and the world today. Also the reason we are coming down on Iran and Korean is because they have so many corrupt Generals, soldiers, and even citizens which make it dangerous for the whole world if they have nukes. Anyone with common sense would know that.

Posted by: Jake at March 9, 2007 11:24 AM

Dennis:

Yes, you're dreaming. Go back to bed now; the adults are talking.

Posted by: syberghost at March 9, 2007 11:15 AM

WHO THE HELL IS THIS DENNIS GUY. HE IS TOTALY IGNORANT. WHAT DOES HE THINK HAS KEPT THIS COUNTRY FREE IT SHURE HASNT BEEN THE LEFT THEY ARE WEAK IN MIND AND RESOLVE. IF IT WERE NOT PEOPLE LIKE ME AND ALL THE OTHER'S THAT WOULD AND DO FIGHT FOR THIS COUNTRY HIS BUT WOULD BE A RUSSIAN OR HITLER GOON. WAKE UP CHANGE YOU MIND SET OR CHANGE YOUR NAME DON'T CALL YOUR SELF AN AMERICAN.....IM TIRED OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU BITTING THE HAND THAT FEED YOU LIKE A DOG...

Posted by: EARL SHULER at March 9, 2007 11:13 AM

This reply is for the dumd SOB'S Dennis, Andrew and Dom. Who do you guy's think is going to protect this world? "It darn sure wont be the democrats." If we allow Iran and N. Korea or some other nut country to have nuke they will use them and who do you think will be the first to complain,it will be you. The only reason that we have freedom, is because of people the are willing to do the ulgy things that need to be done.

Posted by: Tim at March 9, 2007 10:58 AM

If thee other countries continue to build up their nuclear arsenals and we just sit around with what we have from the past then how are we supposed to be able to stand at all against their firepower? We are going to have to build up to stay ahead of other countries if we want to maintain our dominance and the power and freedoms that we do have. The fall of great nations come when they do not establish a national culture, and our nation does not have a culture of its own. We try to take on the cultures of every other nation and that has been the cause of many great nations collapsing on itself. It goes more internal than just a gun or missile we can fire at each other. Now thats a history you should look up.

Posted by: Lee at March 9, 2007 10:56 AM

What our elected officials need is a required reading assignment. Any high school history student knows the basis of the fall of the greatest empire in the world,the Roman Empire,but our leaders show every indication that they failed that class in high school. Politicians, economists, and Joe Citizen should be forced to read the history of the Roman Empire and it's fall,then look in the mirror. That may wake them up. Food for Thought.

Posted by: Vince at March 9, 2007 10:49 AM

WTF?....Bush is most definitely a real nut case! Not only is he looking for a reason to engage Iran because of their alleged nuke development program...and has pretty much told North Korea the same rhetoric, but now he has authorized the development of a new and improved nuke warhead!
Somebody tell me I'm dreaming!

Posted by: Dennis at March 9, 2007 10:35 AM

That is the best article I have ever read. Now, if we could just stop looking at nukes as a weapon of last resort. Think of how many American lives could have been saved if we had nuked Iraq and Afghanistan. Think of how many COULD be saved if we nuked Iran (and Saudi Arabia, and Syria, and France.) Oh well. We'll have to take what we can get.

Posted by: henerd at March 9, 2007 10:15 AM

Looks like our government is being run by a bunch of hipocrates. It is O.K. for us to build up our nukes, but not for Iran. Or any other third world country. This is where they see us as self centered. By doing this we are only giving them more drive to succeed in having thier own nukes. Revelations will come true if stay on this path. "The World Will Be Destroyed By Fire."

Posted by: andrew flores at March 9, 2007 10:10 AM

Let me say one more thing that the biggest threat to world peace and our way of life is radical muslim believers but it seems that not many other countries want to do anything about it and the next biggest threat is libral thinking

Posted by: Donald at March 9, 2007 10:07 AM

Dom, I know my history. And I understand that the Japanese were brutal to prisoners. However, the victors write the history and if you believe that Abu Ghraib was the first instance of the U.S. brutalizing prisoners you are a fool. We ain't no bettr'n anyone else. Look at the way the local cops have brutalized people in their custody. There are many Black Panthers who were tortured by the New Orleans and San Francisco police in the early seventies. I think you need to re-read your history. But don't forget who wrote it.

Posted by: For Dominick Brown at March 9, 2007 09:49 AM

Personally? I would rather not have any nukes out there. Some a$$hat on the other side of the would or country decide, hey today is the day for everyone to die. Just knowing human nature, who in the hell can you trust with that kind of power? Do you know what's really going on in that guys head? MAD is pure craziness if you think about it for half a second, it's two guys who kill everybody in the world. Stick them on the steet and let 'em fight it out.

Posted by: Sean at March 9, 2007 09:44 AM

Sure, while you are at it ask all the people who live in St. George, Utah about the nuke tests that were conducted up wind of their town. St. George has a cancer clinic, unusual for a city of about 50,000. The cancer incident in St. George is astromically hig. So why don't you guys move to St. George if you are so convinced that new nukes is good nukes.

Posted by: The freakin idiot dumbass at March 9, 2007 09:42 AM

"All wars were started because of relgion"

What about the hundred or so wars in Africa right now that are based on racial differences, and have nothing to do with religion? I agree, many wars were started by religious differences, but by no means were all wars started by religion.

And just as a shameless plug -- WWII? Also not started because of religion; it was again a racially fueled war.

Posted by: Taylor B. at March 9, 2007 09:41 AM

I think you make great points.

Posted by: A Miller at March 9, 2007 09:40 AM

Bob Vine, your a freakin idiot dude!

Posted by: jeff at March 9, 2007 09:28 AM

Bob Vine: You are truly an "american dumbass". The new warheads are here to ensure that if anyone ever got a hold of one by accident, they would not be able to set it off! It is a 21st century safety feature because of the amount of proliferation that has been going on with nuclear weapons in the last 15 years. Besides that...WTF does a new design have to do with Hiroshima and Nagasaki? They got what they deserved and I stand by our decision to use them! Maybe you should read some articles about what the japenese did to US troops when they were captured! Like pour urine and feces on their wounds to make their suffering that much longer and miserable! If you don't know your history, shut your mouth fool!

Posted by: Dominik Brown at March 9, 2007 09:28 AM

All weapons have a use. All weapons evolve. Technical changes to warheads are needed especially in light of the ban on underground testing. Nukes deter major powers from reaching too far, too fast vis-a-vis Nazi Germany gobbling up much of Europe. American dominance in this field is essential for peace to have a chance in a world prone to huge conflict.

Posted by: Fred Carino at March 9, 2007 09:25 AM

WTF? The editors of this rag should be shot. A new dawn for Nukes? Talk to the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We dropped those bombs to prove a point, which was, that we were not afraid to use them. Japan had offered surrender terms after Midway and continued to offer them until we were ready to accept them which was after we killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of women and children. New dawn for nukes my ass. All you religious freaks take a look at your religious beliefs all wars were started because of religion!!

Posted by: Bob Vine at March 9, 2007 09:04 AM

The existence of strategic nuclear weapons is the most salient reason why the Cold War remained cold & didn't turn hot. It is alo the principal reason why there is not be a world war fought among major powers since WWII. Nuclear weapons make such wars untenable simply because no one wins.

Posted by: R Coulon at March 9, 2007 09:02 AM

nukes r a last resort.......we are only making them better because we dont want the "terrorists" to think they have some thing on us....if they were smart they would develop better EMP devices...thats the way to go...cant fire a nuke with out electricity...as for Rome, history repeats itself...rome fell and some day we will to....it is a harsh reality that must be accepted by all..will we go fighting or roll over!

Posted by: steve-o- at March 9, 2007 08:54 AM

It is insane to believe that nuclear weapons are a viable tool to fight a war. The only thing that nuclear power should be used for is an almost inexhaustable source of energy. If people could see a nuclear explosion this would be apparent to them. America being the big dog on the block of the entire world is stupid.
To the individual that referred to God as the myth in the sky, should take stock of himself and wonder why he can see, hear, walk, smell, talk and think, then try to imagine this to be an accident. Thank you.

Posted by: Joseph Scott at March 9, 2007 08:50 AM

I don't even know if it is worth writing here. People are going to believe what the will and most of the time their opinions won't change. Here's 2 cents from the peanut gallery anyhow. America needs a stong military presence and Nukes are a part of it. No one wants to use either, but you have to have them otherwise you'd have some 2 bit country launching nukes or something at us. Concerning the writers who keep doging President Bush any chance they have just to be heard. "Get a clue". No he's not perfect, but he sure beats the man who was before him.

Posted by: Ben at March 9, 2007 08:49 AM

OK, Lets put this in language that anyone can understand.

We are not Replacing the Pit Bull in the our back yard or buying New Dogs. We are puting it on a diet to get it more fit to do its job and replacing its leash with a stronger chain.

Posted by: Centurion at March 9, 2007 08:38 AM

For the idiot who believes that the founding Fathers wanted religion out of politics. Maybe you need to keep your ignorance to yourself. Christianity was the foundation of this Country and this land will fall when it stops believing.

Posted by: Steve Lunford at March 9, 2007 08:30 AM

There is also nothing like a blogs page for bible thumpers to grandstand and make a religious issue out of an article about nukes. The only common thread is the half-wit hick of a President who stands with the religious right, but like most Christians is completely hypocritical. Clearly, expanding and upgrading our nuclear arsenal immediately following our policing of other countries nuke programs is just ignorant. "W" is the biggest embarrassment this country has ever had to endure. The fact that he still has supporters in this country just proves how blind faith can be. These are the same "adults" who have an imaginary friend in the sky. Keep religion out of politics. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. This country was founded on the idea!

Posted by: exsquid at March 9, 2007 08:19 AM

We stay in power because other countries know that we have the bigger gun if they new that we didn't have the best weapons availiable that would be like saying take you best shot we might beable to counter your action we might not. We have been a super power less then 60 years if we want to be the next Rome we have to stay ahead of other countries and if we don't we won't last.

Posted by: Tom at March 9, 2007 07:40 AM

It is strange, to me, that so many think we should roll over and play dead allowing the Chineese, Russians, French and others of that ilk to then force us through the United Nations to do their bidding. That is not an option to us that believe in our constitutional form of government. Thank God for President of the United States George W. Bush tht will not roll to the left and their socialists ideas. The nukes are part of the agenda.

Posted by: Stan Giles at March 9, 2007 07:26 AM

It is strange, to me, that so many think we should roll over and play dead allowing the Chineese, Russians, French and others of that ilk to then force us through the United Nations to do their bidding. That is not an option to us that believe in our constitutional form of government. Thank God for President of the United States George W. Bush tht will not roll to the left and their socialists ideas.

Posted by: Stan Giles at March 9, 2007 07:24 AM

Ah, there's is nothing like a blog page to illustrate the appalling illiteracy and ignorance that has torpedoed American Democracy. For those of you who do not believe in God, I refer you to the doctrine of the survival of the fittest. For those who do, I refer you to www.bak2thebible.net

Posted by: redcham at March 9, 2007 07:21 AM

Ah, there's is nothing like a blog page to illustrate the appalling illiteracy and ignorance that has torpedoed American Democracy. For those of you who do not believe in God, I refer you to the doctrine of the survival of the fittest. For those who do, I refer you to www.bak2thebible.net

Posted by: redcham at March 9, 2007 07:20 AM

This blog seems to be mising the point. the action being taken is an upgrade, not more weapons. As long as other countries contiue to have nukes, so must we. If we must have nukes, lets have modern nukes that don't blow up accidentally in their silo, or begin leaking because they use 30 year old technology. How many of you would trust a 30 year old bullet? Especially when newer, safer bullets are available.
The question as to whether or not we should have any nukes is not being addressed in the article. Maybe we could start another blog about that. I am curious how many people think we should upgrade or keep the lower quality nukes?

Posted by: Terry Casalou at March 9, 2007 06:57 AM

gah...what the fuck is he thinking? >.>

Posted by: KingOfChaos at March 9, 2007 06:20 AM

HMMM. Seems like the wrong way to go when we are so hyper critical of any other nation trying to do what we are obviously do and develop nuclear weapons. Why throw stones when we live in a glass house. I bet some of the bigwigs on the hill have money in the companies that are working so hard to develop this new type of destruction. Absolute nonsense for any reasonable person to think this is a good thing.

Posted by: aaron at March 9, 2007 06:13 AM

I laugh at the people that think we should sit on our butts and let the world roll by.
We do what we need to do to keep our Country Strong! which has kept us safe and in the lead. Sure we could sit back and watch the world pass us by then when you folks are not ready it will happen, BOOM! what was that? oh must have been one of those countries You were so strong about leaving alone, blowing up new york or some other city. and where will we be....? way behind the curve and wondering what happened. That is WHY we NEED to stay on top of the Weapons race and watch over the others who want us dead, because We are The greatest country in the World with the most Freedoms and Thank god our goverenment wants to keep it that way!

Posted by: Live in a real world! at March 9, 2007 04:50 AM

It's Hard to start when there are so many issues but I think that fundamentally we all know right from wrong. I meen how could you not!so who pays for war and who makes money off of war who stands to gain from global unrest.I would say there is where the real problem lies. Is our world spiraling out of control and what can we do about it as the little people who's only use seems to be cannon fodder and a endless pocket for those who profit off of human misery and I'm not just talking about war will we wake up in time and take action. PS.I could point the finger at anybody but what would be the point we need awnsers not blame yes I think is's stupid to be able to desroy the place you live.

Posted by: Donald at March 9, 2007 04:27 AM

It's Hard to start when there are so many issues but I think that fundamentally we all know right from wrong. I meen how could you not!so who pays for war and who makes money off of war who stands to gain from global unrest.I would say there is where the real problem lies. Is our world spiraling out of control and what can we do about it as the little people who's only use seems to be cannon fodder and a endless pocket for those who profit off of human misery and I'm not just talking about war will we wake up in time and take action. PS.I could point the finger at anybody but what would be the point we need awnsers not blame yes I think is's stupid to be able to desroy the place you live.

Posted by: Donald at March 9, 2007 04:26 AM

Seems like you have the same mentality that felt, during the Clinton years and after the fall of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, that we had no more threats, so why do we need a big military? I can think of three BIG threats right now: China, N.Korea, and Iran. Wake up & read, and maybe even watch the news---you might learn something.

-------------------------
Didn't the US sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1978 to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to disarm current stockpiles in agreement with Russia disarming its stockpiles? Aren't we at war with Iraq for having weapons of mass destruction? Are we not looking at Iran for the same? Aren't we worried about Korea and it's development of Nuclear weapons? Seems like since no other country in the world poses a real threat to the US that we can now do whatever the hell we want to do, or have we always done that..

Posted by: Brandon at March 8, 2007 04:02 AM

Posted by: Jack Brown at March 9, 2007 04:20 AM

Personally, I think we have come a long way since Los Alamos let "Annie" get her gun...

http://www.damninteresting.com/wp-content/animated_annie.gif

Posted by: stupidintel at March 9, 2007 12:30 AM

For Sunshine/Rainbow:

You're a REAL Treasure...

I think we should bury you.

Posted by: Jaishen at March 8, 2007 09:31 PM

Sunshine/Rainbo - If you think AK-47's & RPGs are part of the U.S. arsenal, you need to get better educated on the subject...before you go spouting off on a U.S. Military forum. Whoops, too late, you've already made the fool of yourself w/o any assistance.

NATO & former Soviet-bl;ock weapons do NOT come out of same inventories, nor are they sold by the same "Arms Dealers". We're not fighting against insurgents using U.S.-made equipment in either Afghanistan OR Iraq.

Posted by: Danbo at March 8, 2007 08:01 PM

How many of you really realize that the country you are fighting in & about, the USA, also supplies weapons to the very people our military are fighting??? Does anyone see the irony??? If people really wanted to support our troops that would be a good place to start, stop selling or trading weapons to the so called enemy. As far as us having to protect ourselves from other countries, ponder on this, the best way to take over a country is from the inside out. Their already here and have been for many years. Don't you think we all have a lot of explaining to do to all those people resting in Arlington??? Do you really think they'd be proud of the fact that many Americans will fight each other to the death because they think their opinions are right and have never learned to respect or even listen to other opinions? Just remember you must first understand your opponents views before you can really understand your own. I am blessed I have always been able to totally listen to and try to understand the other side of any and all disagreements, and still be exactly who I am and keep my beliefs and thoughts while respecting others. I do agree to have peace you must prepare for war, and I also agree we have brought much of this on ourselves by our own past behavior and our sad sad way of only interferring in other countries problems if there is a benefit to us. I always wondered, the Pres has his food, house and everything provided for while he serves in office, why does he also need a paycheck? Who would run if there was no pay? But then I suppose you would still get the power trip people who would run for office. It is a little late to disarm our nation and practice peace on earth but do any of us really understand how to practice a peaceful approach to a discussion and respect other's rights to their opinion? Everyone is so angry and selfish these days that people tell me I am a very rare find to still believe in the human race and to believe in people doing the right thing. As for what war does to people and what it permanently takes from those who fight always remember those who talk don't know and those who know don't talk. Peace be with you

Posted by: sunshine/rainbow at March 8, 2007 05:34 PM

Grunt Hill 881 - Silver Star
Adolfo - Bronze Star
dwbucholz - Certificate of Recognition

Im done. Moving on. Its been fun. Just remember, just because you ride around with a bumper sticker on your SUV, or wear a Navy Seal t-shirt, doesnt make you a damn thing. If you believe in the good fight then you damn well better be fighting. If you cant serve then you better at least be trying to help. Those who have seen war, know the horror of it. Those who havent, should just shut the 'F' up until they have.

God Bless

Posted by: James at March 8, 2007 04:32 PM

Nathanael Greene

Rhode Island born on July 27, 1742 - Siege of Boston -1775

"Vote yes on no!" It's the American Way ;-)

Posted by: Grunt Hill 881 at March 8, 2007 04:18 PM

One more...

Nathaniel Greene was a soldier from which state and during what siege did he and Washington first meet?

Posted by: James at March 8, 2007 03:52 PM

dwbucholz

I just wanted the name of the policy, and that was answered correctly. Not any other uses of it.

Posted by: James at March 8, 2007 03:50 PM

It was the Germans that applied the scorched earth tactic when retreating from Russia in '44-'45. Sort of off the point but, never the less.

Posted by: dwbucholz at March 8, 2007 03:38 PM

Correct!

But sorry Grunt Hill 881, I could only offer it to Adolfo, since he answered my first question. I do like reading your posts though! Keep em coming!

Posted by: James at March 8, 2007 03:34 PM

James-

Can I answer your question and get the trip to Tahiti? I sure need a vacation after reading this thread of posts ;-) The policy was the "Scorched Earth Policy" The same policy was used by Stalin against Hitler when he invaded Russia.

Tip of the day - "Don't pet a burning dog"

Posted by: Grunt Hill 881 at March 8, 2007 03:16 PM

I find the comments very interesting on this board about nuclear weapon but sadly most of the comments are coming from vets whose job it was in the military did not involve nuclear weapons. I thank god that I did not serve with people like you. You see I spent 8 years in the Navy on SSBN’s I was one of the few whose job it was to actually use nukes, yes I was SWS, Strategic Weapons Systems, trained. The MAD polices we had during the Cold War was insane as were the few Senior Policy makers who actually thought the US could win a limited nuclear exchange. We, those of us who where trained and had the responsibility to use nukes, knew that if we actually did a tactical launch we were in effect destroying the world.

No rational human being would even consider using nuclear weapons in a first strike or limited means.

Posted by: BoomerSailor at March 8, 2007 03:11 PM

BINGO Adolfo!

Very good. Now for 1st place and a trip to Tahiti answer me this:

William T Sherman's asymmetric warfare style of tactics as he moved through Georgia could be described as what "type" of policy?

Posted by: James at March 8, 2007 02:55 PM

President Truman was the one that ordered Fatboy and Littleboy into service. Fatboy was dropped in Hiroshima by Col. Tippets in a B29 Plane named Enola Gay. Littleboy dropped a week later in Nagasaki. A B 29 Plane named Boxcard (I am not sure) I cannot remember the pilot name either. (This goes to show you that number one is always remembers, but not number 2).
Adolfo Piña

Posted by: Adolfo Piña at March 8, 2007 02:46 PM

Yeah, how many people here actually know which president ordered FatMan and Little Boy to be called into service?
And "who" were FatMan and LittleBoy for that matter? Im starting to become very suspicious of the intelligence of most of the warmongers here.

Posted by: James at March 8, 2007 02:04 PM

nice one richard Its sad that a tragic event like 9-11 wasnt important enough for you to remember the actual date 9-11-01 not 9-11-00

Posted by: dave at March 8, 2007 12:57 PM

Reply to Gary Z--

Your explanation of the amount of Uranium it would take to blow up the planet is way too long and most of the folks on this thread would quit reading it long before reaching the end. There are a couple of assumptions that you make that I would like to give a different approach to. First is the assumption about the explosive being in the center of the Earth. Lot of Christian people think that the center of the Earth is “Hell”. Since it appears that many on this thread proclaim to be Christians a different theory might be appropriate. You seem to abide by the scientific explanation so this might be an explanation to both camps.

HELL EXPLAINED BY CHEMISTRY STUDENT

Chemistry Question: Is Hell exothermic (giving off heat) or endothermic (absorbing heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell.

Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.

Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct......leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."

The second assumption is that Uranium is the element used in nuclear weapons. Uranium has not been used for decades. Plutonium and Hydrogen seem to be the elements of choice. Scientists have recently discovered a new element that shows promise as being the densest element ever found.

A major research institution has just announced the discovery of the
densest element yet known to science. The new element has been named
"Bushcronium."

Bushcronium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy
neutrons and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 311.
These particles are held together by dark forces called morons, which
are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called
peons.

The symbol for bushcronium is "w."

Bushcronium's mass actually increases over time, as morons randomly
interact with various elements in the atmosphere and become assistant
deputy neutrons in a bushcronium molecule, forming isodopes. This
characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe
that bushcronium is formed when morons reach a certain quantity in
concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "critical
morass."

When catalyzed with gold or platinum, bushcronium activates
foxnewsium, an element that radiates orders of magnitude and more energy, albeit
as incoherent noise. Foxnewsium has 1/2 as many peons but twice as many morons.

I hope that these explanations help in clearing up just one train of thought. As it has been said, “Some people are bound in the round. They tend to put down those they consider to be in the square but; it is neither those in the round or square but; the spiral that lead the top of the stairs.” Brother Dave Gardner

Posted by: Grunt Hill 881 at March 8, 2007 12:37 PM

Hey Bill R.

Growing or having a pair also means having the sense of when, where to use or not use them. So unless you are an HIV infected Dad of 13, and proud, you need to rethink your dumbfounded ideals. And before you go a tear my head off I suggest you look at all my posts on this blog right to the beginning.

Posted by: James at March 8, 2007 10:43 AM

When a nation is on a course tinged with insanity, it should be no surprise that its leadership acts in ways that threaten its existence. Since we are the only the country in history to have used nuclear weapons in war, it follows that we should be the ones who touch off the end of our planet's existence.

We have leaders who are obsessed with maintaining our superiority in a world that is becoming more economically challenging for us, our industrial might is passe' and our military might is strained to its capacity, what is the next step to keep our superpower status? By building bigger and better nuclear weapons and hold the planet hostage.

In our present struggle religion is being confused with ideology, for the main premise of those who confront us in this "War on Terror" are those who see us as the next colonial power, taking the place of Europe. Our colonizing efforts are not claiming territory like in the 19th century style of colonizing, but by serving as the strong arm for the Multi-national Corporations who have already in a sense established their "economic hegemony" in the Global South, look at Nigeria, China, India and other global south nations whose economic makeup is composed of capital from MNC's. These MNCs are threatened by the rewakening of those nations who want to control their own resources, markets and destinys. So they need the US (our soldiers and treasure) to provide the force to keep stability (regimes that are friendly to the MNCs in power) in those regions.

Pogo said it best..We have found the Enemy and it is Us..

Posted by: PR Saunders at March 8, 2007 10:13 AM

on the subject of nukes, Our nukes shouldn't considered a weapon of mass destruction but a weapons that we have use tempered with restraint and one that has been and should be used to save American lives. you can't seperate the ideas at all but we should remember like pearl harbor, on 9/11/2000 we where awaken to a world which wants to inflict harm upon our shores and to our prople.
We should reflect what is the value of an american life and the fact that we would only use atomic weapons to bring an enemy to it's knees that will in no other way reason and conventional ways the cost in American life will be expesnsive.
new generation nucks might be the punch that we need to bring out emienies to out knees and save the grief of loves ones which are bearing the price of this war.

Posted by: Richard at March 8, 2007 09:58 AM

on the subject of nukes, Our nukes shouldn't considered a weapon of mass destruction but a weapons that we have use tempered with restraint and one that has been and should be used to save American lives. you can't seperate the ideas at all but we should remember like pearl harbor, on 9/11/2000 we where awaken to a world which wants to inflict harm upon our shores and to our prople.
We should reflect what is the value of an american life and the fact that we would only use atomic weapons to bring an enemy to it's knees that will in no other way reason and conventional ways the cost in American life will be expesnsive.
new generation nucks might be the punch that we need to bring out emienies to out knees and save the grief of loves ones which are bearing the price of this war.

Posted by: Richard at March 8, 2007 09:58 AM

Yes,

I knew it he is going to push the button!!!!!

The question is when?

Posted by: JJ at March 8, 2007 09:40 AM

Look up the history of Thomas Jefferson and his Koran. While others wanted to appease and pay bribes he knew what it would take to defeat our enemys. He hammered them and they need to fear us today . Keep building them thar nukes we will need em

Posted by: bill cook at March 8, 2007 08:45 AM

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/51/pauwels.html I don't know if you can paste this site above if not copy it and read the whole page I will bet it change's some part of your thinking. I just have a poem I would like you to read and if I can put my E-Mail address at the end I will take all the flack you want to throw. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things the decayed and degraded state of moral and pathetic feeling of a person who thinks that nothing is worth a war is much uglier a man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight - nothing he care's about more then his own personel safety and well being - is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free' unless made and kept so by the exertions and of better men than himself. John Stewart Mill 1806 - 1873 Now before you all come down on my head you must remeber that I'm just a dumb ridge running hillbilly with no degree's and 9 years of school. Thank each and everyone for your time and I hope I have not wasted it. William (Bill) Moore wmoore6@cinci.rr.com

Posted by: Bill at March 8, 2007 06:56 AM

Didn't the US sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1978 to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to disarm current stockpiles in agreement with Russia disarming its stockpiles? Aren't we at war with Iraq for having weapons of mass destruction? Are we not looking at Iran for the same? Aren't we worried about Korea and it's development of Nuclear weapons? Seems like since no other country in the world poses a real threat to the US that we can now do whatever the hell we want to do, or have we always done that..

Posted by: Brandon at March 8, 2007 04:02 AM

You can't argue politics when the enemy is arguing religion; they don't exactly mix. Unfortunately, those who criticize compare our present situation with earlier military confronttions like Viet Nam, Korea, WW2 and so forth. In those wars we fought against ideas. In the current situatiion, we are now confronted by ideals. Pay close attention to the two words: One has an "L", which COMPLETEY changes the sitation. In an idea, it is a formulated thought much like an opinion, contextually able to change due to environmental input and logic. In the latter fom of ideals, they are beliefs rooted centuries old. Handed down from one generation to the next and very rigid and unable to change. I, for one, believe if the enemy so desires to die and receive his x-amount of virgins in heaven, let us expedite his journey to the other side and save our brothers in arms lives by delivering a nuke right into their backyard. "But what of the innocent people over there?" You say. We designed a weapon that was designed to MASS kill, not precision extermination. A last resort, kill everything solution. How many of our people must die before we realize we are in a war we cannot win until we are prepared to escalate the violence to a point they cannot respond to?

Posted by: Travis at March 8, 2007 03:43 AM

Hey I'm here to tell ya Hilliary,Obama,Nancy and Murtha the others in the Democratic party want to change our flag from the stars and stripes to a white surrender flag and pass out to our troops a white surender redeployment metal they're shameful plum shameful

Posted by: John F Jackson at March 8, 2007 12:11 AM

Growing a pair is exactly what we need to do and show that not only can we hammer them but that we won't hesitate. This crap about having to make sure that CBS News, the View and Oprah agree is complete bullshit!

Posted by: Dave at March 7, 2007 11:21 PM

This is exactly why we are in the position we are in. We cannot agree on anything. If someone says the sun is bright, somenoe will come back and say, that is not the sun, it is the moon. Damn, Damn, Damn.
People, do we want this country to servive or not. A big, well armed, well trained military will keep the other side at bay. And yes, when I say well armed that includes nukes.
We have to stop acting like a bunch of scared little girls and show them that if they get in our faces, we will put them on their backs.
They are more determined than us, have much more to gain than us and have less to live for than us. Wake up and smell the coffee before it is too late. If we don't get serious about protecting ourselves we are doomed for sure.
I wasn't going to say this but I cannot help myself. All you wimpy, I just want an education, I don't want to fight types are not americans. If you are not willing to put it all on the line as some of the rest of us have done, you need to get the hell out of MY COUNTRY. Quit being little girls, grow a pair and stand up and act like men.

Posted by: Billy Richardson at March 7, 2007 10:59 PM

Hey Steve, Slow your roll... if you would have taken the time to ACTUALLY READ my post you would have discovered I am far from being a LIB! IF YOU READ THE POST, you would have seen that quoted a lib then I referred to the "libs" as most call them as being "neo-COMMIES" as that is what they actually are.
I am a Reagan Conservative in every sense of the word! Slapping the label of liberal on what the Democrats (far from being democratic)is being polite. Do everyone a favor by completely reading posts and pay attention to what is said b4 bashing!
Our military strength is what makes the US a free country, which is why I served in the Navy. With the constant military bashing that is going on in this country, the terrorists (aka insurgents to the media) are just given "ammo" to recruit more and more.
BTW, anyone interested... The USS Saipan LHA-2 where I was stationed from 9/93 to 9/95 will be decommed in about a month. Kind sad...

Posted by: Gene at March 7, 2007 10:56 PM

FUCK BUSH

Posted by: Stephen Tierney at March 7, 2007 10:49 PM

Yes, serious and grave mistakes have been made. The problem is that, now that we have some tangible experience at this problem of changing a society without bombing it into complete submission, we have to give the lessons learned a chance to have an effect. The changes are and have been put in place but it will take some time to see the actual result. And, because we haven't done this before we still may not have the formula perfected.

I hate this stuff as much as the rest of you but I have found little in terms of viable options. Check your geography; We, by having a presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is the only way we can handle Iran - an we will have to do that in the future!

Bush used WMD as one of the motivators for the US public to back the war - and FDR made it inevitable that Japan would attack to get us into WWII. Which one should we hange first? Or do we accept that we elect statesman to make the hard choices and sell them to a reluctant public for the greater (all be it, painful) good.

Great talking with you James.

Posted by: Dave at March 7, 2007 10:19 PM

Former U.S. Navy sailor arrested on terror charges
http://cnn.com

This is our military today! Lets get some damn control again!

Posted by: James at March 7, 2007 09:59 PM

Dave-
Your point is well taken and I agree to some extent, but to some greater extent I feel we have squandered a vast amount of our defensive and offensive resources which could have been put better use. Our enlistments are down. Imagine, had we never attacked Iraq, and we were dealing with Iran now. Ahmadinejad
would probably not be as emboldened as he is today. Nor would Kim Sung Il. Yes I know 20/20, but god-dammit, lets start fixing the damn problem, or at least stop rubbing salt in it. We need to become the hunters again, not the prey.

Posted by: James at March 7, 2007 09:51 PM

The point here is that we can't control what they are going to do; the Romans tried that and it didn't work - we can only react and defend ourselves. In this case we have made a conscious choice to go to them to enact that defense because it is nearly impossible to defend against everything. If no one had nukes the same issues would be present as history has shown. The idea that someone somewhere is briliant enough to come up with an all-encompassing solution to these problems is folly at best. This is a chess game and because of human nature (as discomforting as that is ) these issues will always be present.

There are small companies, down to the basic unit of families or individuals, that can't control there own issues. Many of you looking for perfection in our government - our government is made up of poeple like you and is as prone to mistakes as you - change the President, change the Congress you will not find the perfection you are craving.

Yes, this is all a bitter pill, but it is the unfortunate truth.

The bottom line is that no one is just going to stand by and leave you alone because you think you deserve it. Many would argue that the Dutch just leave people alone and so no one messes with them. They are on the infidel list too!

Posted by: Dave at March 7, 2007 09:41 PM

Id second that...

Posted by: James at March 7, 2007 09:37 PM

To all posters -

Lets all form our own secret society and do what we see fit to maintain our way of life! Like the Illuminati.

Posted by: McLaren at March 7, 2007 09:35 PM

Dave,

I dont disagree with you. And if I thought negotiations would work and I was the person to do it I would. The man is not well mentally. My point was that news of our REPLACEMENT of nuclear war heads will only destroy any last little bit of hope for negotiation if, in fact, it does exist. It seems our actions will only hasten those of our enemies. Which given to the point of the next poster's response above you, there could be something there. I dont know any more than you or anyone else. All I do know, is that I believe our current government, Dems and Repubs, lack the intelligence or forsight to use it as such, a proverbial mindgame, to bring out the enemy and make him react. I think they are taking it on the mere assumption that MAD seemed to work once.

Posted by: James at March 7, 2007 09:25 PM

I think this is really funny! I mean.....the last 10 or so posts have been nothing more than a bunch of crap slung back and forth and everyone is missing the point. Has it slipped eveyones attention that perhaps there is more to this than what your seeing? Could it be perhaps we WANT the enemy to know what we're up too for more than just a flex of our muscle? When was the last time we saw any real news (other than someones speculation) I mean hard evidence into the goings on in Iran or Korea. Does anyone here really, I mean really believe the UN or it's ability to oversee and investigate nuclear capabilities in the world? It seems to me that sometimes the fastest way to get information is by giving it. Sure, we were developing these nukes anyway, but does everyone really think this isn't a carefully planned and executed "leak" of information put out on purpose to try and gain some?

Posted by: SFH at March 7, 2007 09:13 PM

James, Ahmadinejad's motivator is not logic and peace but the bringing of the 12th Imam from hiding. To do this many in a different sect of his religion believe that this will happen of its own accord. Ahmadinejad and those who follow his sect believe that if he creates the great cataclysm it will usher in the 12th Imam and the new age by his influnce. Therefore he believes that Man (he himself) has the power to make these divine things happen.

Would you like to negotiate with him - will your Western viewpoint convince him? Don't forget that the great cataclysm has to be with the infidel - in other words - YOU! and me and everyone in Europe and the U.S.

If you don't believe me look up his Bio's.

Posted by: Dave at March 7, 2007 09:04 PM

Don

I like your poetic points. Your missing one though. The threats we face today, dont care if they destroy themselves, as long as they take us with them. They dont value there own lives. You cant fight that and you cant threaten it. All you can do is make sure it never comes close. Mahmoud Amadenijad, Im sure, is trembling, and planning a halt this very moment.

Posted by: James at March 7, 2007 08:49 PM

From all my years of military history. (and those years are adding up) The one thing I believe. You can not enjoy peace. Without being totally prepared for war.
With other countries acquiring basic nuclear systems. We need to show that we can defeat these capabilities.
Until we find a better way. Life in the city has shown me. A man will drop a knife. When he can see the hollow points in your revolver.
The fields the olive branch will eventually grow in, will need a scarecrow. Our foes are crows now. If they grow to be ravens, They will echoe "evermore"

Posted by: Don at March 7, 2007 08:24 PM

Steve - One more thing. We never found any weapons of mass destruction (whether they existed or not) of any substance, so we never destroyed any, of any substance. Get your fucking facts straight!

Posted by: James at March 7, 2007 07:48 PM

Deterent, Hmm. Deterent. If your old weapons shelf-life is ending does it remain a deterent???

If people that would like to take your house and everything in it and they know there is nothing you can do about it will they be so civil as not to?

Some of you need to study history I think.

By the way - did we fight the Revolutionary War becasue someone attacked us? No, we wanted self determination and when a simple tax was imposed the pot began to boil over - so when you look at wars to complain about you should be careful.

Gary - Take a breath.

Posted by: Dave at March 7, 2007 07:47 PM

Steve - You are a dumbass. Saddam may have been a scumbag, and was, but he wasnt stupid. Why on earth do you think he would have used chemicals on the US or Europe. So he could get hung sooner? He loved himself and his rule and wouldnt have jeopardized it in a heartbeat after his failed attempt to occupy Kuwait. Grow the "F" up!

Posted by: James at March 7, 2007 07:44 PM

my dad was in wwii & korea. my ex was in vietnam & laos (shhhh). i have seen war affects first hand. i have earned the right to my opinion so thought i'd post a few old bumper stickers slogans from back in the day when just maybe someone really cared about other people & nations. and by the way my soul cries for those who say we have every right & need to protect our nation & forget to add the one we stole from the indians who seemed better at getting along & not being so greedy. war doesn't really care who's innocent, who's gonna arrest war for disturbing the peace? never forget the first thing to break when the bomb drops is the human heart. we are the unwilling let by the unqualified to do the unnecessary for the ungrateful. and to all those who earned a space on the wall or any other monument. thanks for fighting so i could speak. i _never did not support you. i just wanted you home and not used up at our nation's expense for the wrong reasons. peace be with you and tranquility come to your doorstep.

Posted by: sunshine/rainbow at March 7, 2007 07:42 PM

Brian

Firs let me say Ive never claimed to be a liberal or a democrat. Im an NRA card carrying Libertarian for that matter. I dont claim we shouldnt use our military for the right reasons, its just that in Iraq we havent. Also, I usually dont post on forums, but I get so mad at people who are all HO-AH, Hoo-Rah, and a few Hoo-Yahs, who have never even served in peacetime. Im all for keeping our defenses up to date. We just need to be more tacful about it. Spouting it out to the world, as this administration has done will do nothing. Again, see my point on MAD and Doug from the UK's point.

Posted by: James at March 7, 2007 07:39 PM

Its about time we got back on the NUCLEAR WEAPONS GIG... We've know in Nuclear Power that the Russians were the first ones to design a WARHEAD big enough to destroy the EARTH itself... Now we're going to PROVE, FOR THE BUSH FAMILY ALONE, if for NO OTHER REASON, "WE CAN CAN DESTROY THE EARTH IN FRONT OF GOD'S EYES and ALL"

How much Uranium
would it take to blow up the earth?
This subject came up on Tom VanFlandern's forum so I thought I'd make a rough calculation (in the spirit of Christmas ;o) The basic idea is ... If a large concentration of uranium existed at the earth's core ... and it went critical ... how much would it take to accelerate 1/2 of the earth's mass to escape velocity (25,000 miles per hour)? I would count this as a reasonable example of a planet blowing up and it would serve as a ballpark estimate for planets of other types and masses.

The Earth's Mass

mass of Earth = 5.9742 × 1024 kilograms (pasted from Google)
That took all of 3 seconds. I just entered "mass of the earth" and the first entry was the number. Way to go Google!.

So, half of that is 3 x 1024 kilograms

To accelerate that much mass to 25,000 miles per hour. Google Search (kilograms per mile) ... 1 mile = 1.609344 kilometers x 25,000 = 40,000 kilometers per hour ... x 1000 (to get meters) / 3600 (to get per second) = 11,111 meters per second.

So, energy equals one half times mass times velocity squared and the "second squared" remains just "one".

1/2 x [3 x 1024 x 11,1112 ] / [12] = 1.8 x 1032 Joules
... to blow up the planet.

(a joule is related to the fundamental units in that a joule is 1 kg m2 /s2) - from Google search

Now what about that Uranium?

One kilogram (about 2.2 pounds) of matter converted to energy is equivalent to ~ 9 x 1016 joules

U-235 + n ==> U-236
U-236 ===> fission fragments + 2 to 4 neutrons + 200 MeV energy (approx.)

from Google - 1 megaelectron volt = 1.60217646 × 10-13 Joules

So, one uranium atom releases 200 x 1.60217646 × 10-13 =
~3x10-11 Joules

Now then, 3x10-11 Joules goes into 1.8 x 1032 Joules =
~ 6 x 1042 Uranium atoms blowing up all at once to blow up the planet.

1 amu ˜ 1.6605387 × 10-27 kilograms times U-235 = ~3.90 x 10-25 Kg per U-235 atom

3.90 x 10-25 Kg x 6 x 1042 =
~2.3 x 1018 Kilograms of U-235 to blow the planet

6 x 1024 / 2.3 x 1018 =

About 1 part in 2,600,000 of the Earth's mass would have to be uranium at the Earth's core (at critical mass density) to blow the planet. This amounts to a ball of uranium about

hmmmm ...

Uranium is at 18,700 kilograms per cubic meter ... so ...

2.3 x 1018 divided by 1.87 x 104 =

About 1.23 x 1014 cubic meters, which translates into a ball about ...

4/3 pi r3 = 1.23 x 1014 or ...
r = [1.23 x 1014 x 3/4 x 3.14159 ]-3 which is ... of course ...

6.6 x 104 meters ... or ...

134 kilometers in diameter ... or ...

84 miles in diameter

This is a lot of Uranium

How can it be kept from exploding while it is forming? Simple ...

It must not reach critical mass, that's all. Then when the total is there in place ... after having drifted into position for millions of years ... some part of it goes to critical mass and that part blows up. Of course the rest will blow up as well in a second or two because it takes the critical density to start ... not continue. A big ball at near critical density will not blow up but it will all blow ... if ... some part of it starts the whole thing going, i.e. the non-critical density portion will not "damp out" the continuing explosion all through the entire 84 mile diameter ball.

So, I guess the Exploded Planet Hypothesis could be viable by uranium fission (unless I screwed up the math ). I can't think of any other viable candidate.

The Cosmic Origins & Geological Role of Uranium
Briefing Paper # 78

November 2006

Uranium drives 16% of our electricity worldwide, yet this fact pales into insignificance when we consider the role uranium has played in the evolution of the Earth.
The Earth's uranium was produced in one or more supernovae over 6 billion years ago.
Uranium later became enriched in the continental crust.

Geologists and geochemists have been studying the abundance, distribution and chronometric potential of the isotopes of uranium for more than a century. Their work stems from Klaproth's discovery in 1789 of the heaviest naturally occurring element, Becquerel's demonstration in 1896 that uranium salts are radioactive, Boltwood's conclusion in 1905 that lead as well as helium is a decay product of uranium, and Rutherford's suggestion in 1906 of the geological time-keeping potential of radioactivity. From a geochemical point of view, some of the major questions are:

Where did the uranium now in the Earth come from?
What effects has the comparatively trivial uranium content of the Earth had on the evolution of the planet and, conversely, are there feedbacks controlling the geochemical cycle of uranium that vary secularly (ie over long, indefinite periods of time)?
Can we track through time the way uranium has been recycled through the exosphere, crust and mantle of the Earth?

Cosmic abundance of elements

For many years, since the 1930s, a large number of scientists have been occupied with determining the abundances of the elements and their isotopes in the objects comprising the solar system, and with accounting for the abundance patterns observed. In fact, spectroscopic measurements show that the abundances of elements in stars vary and that there is no single applicable 'cosmic abundance' pattern.

Closer to home, there are major differences in abundances of the elements in the various planets that orbit our hydrogen-helium dominated Sun. The terrestrial planets, including the Earth, are relatively depleted in the potentially gaseous or volatile elements (hydrogen, helium, carbon and neon) and are dominated by elements of low and even atomic number (oxygen, magnesium, silicon and iron). On this scale, uranium - the abundance of which in the Sun is only 10-12 that of hydrogen - is an exceedingly rare element. Furthermore, measurements of oxygen isotopes in meteorites show that the solar system as a whole is not homogeneous in terms of isotopic ratios. All these variations point to a conclusion that multiple sources were involved in the production of proto-solar system material.

Where did uranium come from?

Cosmochemists have been concerned not only with patterns and secular trends of abundance of the elements in galaxies but also with the origins of abundance anomalies in particular stars and with theories on the synthesis of different nuclei to account for these observations. According to the theories developed, the Earth's uranium was produced in one or more supernovae*. The main process concerned was the rapid capture of neutrons on seed nuclei at rates greater than disintegration through radioactivity. The neutron fluxes required are believed to occur during the catastrophically explosive stellar events called suopernovae. Gravitational compression of iron (the island of nuclear stability, incapable of further exothermic fusion reactions) and sudden collapse in the centre of a massive star triggers the explosive ejection of much of the star into space, together with a flood of neutrons. Remnants of hundreds of supernovae have been found, and we "witnessed" one in the Magellanic Clouds in 1987.

* An explosive brightening of a star in which the energy radiated by it increases by a factor of ten billion. ... A supernova explosion occurs when a star has burned up all its available nuclear fuel and the core collapses catastrophically." - Oxford Dictionary of Physics.

So, we know that the earth's uranium was produced through this process in one or more supernovae, and that this material was inherited by the solar system of which the Earth is a part.

We might further ask how long ago this synthesis of uranium occurred. Given

the present day abundances of U-235 and U-238 in the various 'shells' forming our planet,
a knowledge of the half-lives of these isotopes, and
the age of the Earth (c 4.55 billion years) - known from various radiometric 'clocks', including those of the uranium-to-lead decay chains,
we can calculate the abundances of U-235 and U-238 at the time the Earth was formed. Knowing further that the production ratio of U-235 to U-238 in a supernova is about 1.65, we can calculate that if all of the uranium now in the solar system were made in a single supernova, this event must have occurred some 6.5 billion years ago.

This 'single stage' is, however, an oversimplification. In fact, multiple supernovae from over 6 billion to about 200 million years ago were involved. Additionally, studies of the isotopic abundances of elements, such as silicon and carbon in meteorites, have shown that more than ten separate stellar sources were involved in the genesis of solar system material. Thus the relative abundance of U-235 and U-238 at the time of formation of the solar system

cannot be inverted to a 'single stage' model age,
is essentially an accidental and unique value, and
reflects the input of the explosive debris of many progenitor stars.

Enrichment in Earth's crust

Many analyses have been made of the uranium in the rocks forming the continental and oceanic crusts, and in samples of the Earth's mantle exposed as uplifted slices in mountain belts or as 'xenoliths' in basalts and kimberlites (hosts of diamonds).

We can have some confidence that these measurements are robust for the crust and upper mantle of the Earth, but less confidence that we know the abundance of uranium in the lower mantle and the outer and inner cores. While on average the abundance of uranium in meteorites is about 0.008 parts per million (gram/tonne), the abundance of uranium in the Earth's 'primitive mantle' - prior to the extraction of the continental crust - is 0.021 ppm. Allowing for the extraction of a core-forming iron-nickel alloy with no uranium (because of the characteristic of uranium which makes it combine more readily with minerals in crustal rocks rather than iron-rich ones), this still represents a roughly twofold enrichment in the materials forming the proto-Earth compared with average meteoritic materials.

The present-day abundance of uranium in the 'depleted' mantle exposed on the ocean floor is about 0.004 ppm. The continental crust, on the other hand, is relatively enriched in uranium at some 1.4 ppm. This represents a 70-fold enrichment compared with the primitive mantle. In fact, the uranium lost from the 'depleted' oceanic mantle is mostly sequestered in the continental crust.

It is likely that the process or processes which transferred uranium from the mantle to the continental crust are complex and multi-step. However, for at least the past 2 billion years they have involved:

formation of oceanic crust and lithosphere through melting of the mantle at mid-ocean ridges,
migration of this oceanic lithosphere laterally to a site of plate consumption (this is marked at the surface by a deep-sea trench),
production of fluids and magmas from the downgoing (subducted) lithospheric plate and overriding mantle 'wedge' in these subduction zones,
transfer of these fluids/melts to the surface in zones of 'island arcs' (such as the Pacific's Ring of Fire),
production of continental crust from these island arc protoliths, through remelting, granite formation and intra-crustal recycling.
All through this crust-forming cycle, the lithophile character of uranium is manifest in the constancy of the potassium to uranium ratio at about 10,000 in the rock range from peridotite to granite. Because we would like to keep track of how uranium is distributed in the Earth, the abundance and isotopic characteristics of lead - the radiogenic daughter of U-235 and U-238 - are useful parameters. Table 1 below highlights the relatively low abundance of lead in the Earth's mantle and the consequent high uranium to lead ratio, compared with meteorites. The difference in abundance can most likely be explained by lead's volatile nature and tendency to combine with iron, with lead being lost during terrestrial accretion and core separation. One of the consequences, of course, of these high ratios is the comparatively high radiogenic/non-radiogenic content of Pb-207/Pb-204 and Pb-206/Pb-204 in the Earth's crust and mantle compared with meteorites or the earth's core. (Pb-207 is the final stable decay product of U-235, and Pb-206 is that of U-238. Pb-204 is non-radiogenic.)

Table 1

U abundance
(ppm) Pb abundance
(ppm) U/Pb ratio
Meteorites 0.008 2.470 0.003
Primitive mantle 0.021 0.185 0.113
Continental crust 1.4 12.6 0.111

The figure given for the continental crust is an average of the entire crust. Of course, local concentration of uranium can far exceed these values, ranging up to 50 ppm disseminated in some granites, to much higher values in ore deposits. In fact, in the geological past, local concentrations of uranium have occasionally achieved natural criticality, for example the Oklo reactors in Gabon.

Energy source

Convection in the outer core and the mantle, whereby heat is transferred by movement of heated matter, governs many of the Earth's endogenous processes.

The convection in the core may be driven by the heat released during progressive solidification of the core (latent heat of crystallisation) and leads to the self-sustaining terrestrial dynamo which is the source of the Earth's magnetic field. Heat transfer from the core at the core/mantle boundary is also believed to trigger upwellings of relatively hot, and hence low density, plumes of material. These plumes then ascend, essentially without gaining or losing heat, and undergo decompression melting close to the Earth's surface at 'hot spots' like Hawaii, Reunion and Samoa.

However, the primary source of energy driving the convection in the mantle is the radioactive decay of uranium, thorium and potassium. In the present Earth, most of the energy generated is from the decay of U-238 (c 10-4 watt/kg). At the time of the Earth's formation, however, decay of both U-235 and K-40 would have been subequal in importance and both would have exceeded the heat production of U-238.

A simple way of viewing the process of plate tectonics - the formation and disposal of oceanic lithosphere - is that this is the mechanism by which the mantle sheds heat. Conversely, 'mantle plumes/hot spots' are the way the core sheds heat. In terms of total heat loss from the Earth at present, plate activity constitutes about 74%, hot spots account for approximately 9% and radiogenic heat lost directly from the continental crust is some 17%. The Earth is well insulated thermally and the heat loss from the surface now can reflect heat generation a considerable time in the past.

Measurements of heat have led to estimates that the Earth is generating between 30 and 44 terawatts of heat, much of it from radioactive decay. Measurements of antineutrinos have provisionally suggested that about 24 TW arises from radioactive decay. Professor Bob White provides the more recent figure of 17 TW from radioactive decay in the mantle. This compares with 42-44 TW heat loss at the Earth's surface from the deep Earth. The balance comes from changes in the core. (There is very much greater heat loss arising from incident solar radiation, which is quite distinct.)

Atmosphere and greenhouse effect, the role of plants

Apart from the fundamental physical and chemical differentiation of the Earth driven by plate tectonics, lithosphere formation and destruction are also critical for many processes in the outer layer of the atmosphere. We know, for example, that during periods of enhanced oceanic lithosphere formation, such as occurred during the Cretaceous period some 100 million years ago, the mid-ocean ridges stood higher, triggering flooding of the low-lying portions of the continents. In fact the Laurasian part of the former Pangea supercontinent was drowned to a greater extent than the Gondwana part, maybe reflecting some deep-seated thermal/compositional contrast. The effects were manifold and include:

enhanced carbon dioxide release causing increased carbon dioxide content of the ocean and the atmosphere,
diminished continental surface area leading to a reduction in the titration through weathering of atmospheric carbon dioxide,
sustained high atmospheric carbon dioxide levels leading to an enhanced greenhouse effect and warmer climate.
Secular changes have taken place in several atmospheric processes, including a change in composition, from relatively reducing to astonishingly oxidising. The odd-looking "equation" for atmosphere production is:

CO2 + H2 = N2 + O2

where the primary, volcanically degassed inputs to the atmosphere are on the left, and the cumulative abundant components are on the right hand side of the equation. Nitrogen is a trace volcanic emission, not utilised to any great extent in surface processes - including the trivial effect of organic life - and merely accumulates in the atmosphere. The Earth's distance from the Sun, together with the greenhouse feedback, allows surface temperatures to be generally sustained within the condensation range for water. Carbon dioxide dissolves in water and is also sequestered in calcite by inorganic and organic precipitation as limestone.

The remarkable feature of our atmosphere is the presence of molecular oxygen released through photosynthesis, the process by which green plants manufacture their carbohydrates from atmospheric carbon dioxide and water:

6CO2 + 6H2O = C6H12O6 + 6O2

Photosynthesis can be traced back in time to about 3.8 billion years. For a while, the oxygen released was consumed through oxidation of reduced ferrous compounds at the Earth's surface. Ultimately, the oxygen started to accumulate in the atmosphere as free oxygen some 2.5 billion years ago.

In addition to many other effects, the change in the redox character of the exosphere led to a fundamental change in the way uranium was transported in the weathering-erosion-deposition cycle. Whereas under reduced conditions uranium is relatively insoluble and stable as uraninite (UO2), under oxidising conditions it becomes soluble (U6+) and readily transported. Since 2.5 billion years ago ore deposits of uranium have been formed primarily where reduction of uranium-bearing fluids was achieved, for example by bacteria or through contact with graphitic shales.

Uranium distribution through time

The oxidising atmosphere also led to an increased concentration of uranium in the oceans and thence via transport in recirculating hydrothermal fluids to relative enrichment in the oceanic crust. The enhanced uranium transport from the exosphere to the Earth's interior - via subduction of oceanic lithosphere and the subsequent rehomogenisation of this lithosphere into the Earth's mantle - has had a significant effect on the present distribution of uranium in the Earth, and may account for some curious inconsistencies in the isotopic characteristics of the mantle. For example, whereas the time-integrated Pb-208 (stable final decay product of Th-232)/Pb-206 values of mid-ocean ridge basalts indicate mantle source values of Th/U of about 4, the measured values of Th/U and systematics of short-lived Th-U disequilibria indicate a ratio of about 2. It is likely that since about 2.5 billion years ago injections of uranium into the mantle have been effective in the reduction of the thorium to uranium ratio on an (upper) mantle-wide scale.

An additional net effect is the selective reinjection of uranium as opposed to lead - which is mostly stripped out in subduction zones and returned immediately to the crust - into the mantle. We know that overall, most basalts are being produced from a mantle with an enhanced uranium/lead ratio and with apparent 'future' ages, compared with the lead isotopic ratios characteristic of a closed system, single stage evolution of uranium/lead in the Earth. This feature is sometimes referred to by geochemists as the 'lead paradox', and may in part relate to the feedback influence of an oxidising, life-triggered exosphere on the interior of the Earth.

Natural nuclear reactors in the Earth's crust

At Oklo in Gabon, West Africa, about 2 billion years ago, at least 17 natural nuclear reactors commenced operation in a rich deposit of uranium ore. Each operated at about 20 kW thermal. At that time the concentration of U-235 in all natural uranium was 3.7 percent instead of 0.7 percent as at present*.

* U-235 decays much faster than U-238, whose half-life is about the same as the age of this planet.

These natural chain reactions, started spontaneously by the presence of water acting as a moderator, continued for about two million years before finally dying away. During this long reaction period about 5.4 tonnes of fission products as well as 1.5 tonnes of plutonium together with other transuranic elements were generated in the orebody. The initial radioactive products have long since decayed into stable elements but study of the amount and location of these has shown that there was little movement of radioactive wastes during and after the nuclear reactions. Plutonium and the other transuranics remained immobile.

Georeactor theory

A quite different view of the role of uranium in the Earth is the theory that much of the uranium in the primordial planet sunk to the core and has formed a core there, some 8 km across, which has been fissioning ever since. The depletion of U-235 over geological time has not terminated the reaction because this core is a fast reactor (not requiring any moderator) which breeds plutonium-239 from the U-238. The georeactor theory has relatively little supporting evidence, and is not widely supported.

Sources:
This paper, apart from the last two sections, and an addition quantifying internal energy generation, is by Prof. Richard Arculus, Australian National University, and is used with the author's permission. It is based on a paper presented by Professor Arculus at the Uranium Institute Mid-Term Meeting in Adelaide on 17 April 1996.

Posted by: Gary Zakarian at March 7, 2007 07:28 PM

James, you are a rare bird indeed; a Liberal who has something to beat his chest about and does so. Most Liberals are the way they are because they lack sufficient real-world experience. Show me anyone who had to deal with a bully while growing up, and I will show you someone too smart and experienced to be a Liberal. You must admit, Liberals who have walked the walk in the military are a vast minority, even with the mess we have in Iraq. I have been deployed to Afghanistan, Qatar, and elsewhere in the Middle East, and have been associated with the military for over 20 years. I know the numbers. Your comments don't begin to counter the reality I know. Peace through strength is the only way.

Posted by: Brian at March 7, 2007 07:25 PM

Gene & James,

Two liberal jerks that haven't a clue what is need to protect this Nation. George Busch was damned if I do damned if I don't. If Sadam would have used Chemical or biological wepons on the Us of any of our alies in Europe or else where you would be blaming the President for not invading and destroying the wepons of mass destruction. I love seeing Hillary and all those Dems fliping and flopping on the war. Liberalism is a mental disorder. When Habib cut your familes heads off maybe you might get the picture but I doubt it!

Posted by: Steve at March 7, 2007 07:22 PM

I just love people like this..."This really makes sense, in this day and age, where our administration is trying to keep others from developing these weapons that we would still be developing them." It really shows how the liberal, excuse me, I mean neo-commie mindset is hell bent on the US becoming more unsecure of a nation as we were proved to be on 9-11-01. Reread the article neo-commie, it says they will REPLACE the current supply of nukes.

Posted by: Gene at March 7, 2007 07:12 PM

Steve - Yep you got it. Some of the so-called liberal dems you claim on this post have actually seen combat or have been in an active war zone, myself included. Keep up your bull and ignorance, sadly it makes me laugh. But unless you can walk the walk, you are a mute point.

Posted by: James at March 7, 2007 07:07 PM

Some of the comments by obvious cowardly dems and libs show exactly why we need to keep up "on our enemies!" If Iran and North Korea and Venezuela develop weapons of Nuclear distruction it will be only a matter of time before we (the US), Israel or another democratic country get hit. Cheers for George Bush! He is keeping us strong. And we had better damn well make sure we stay that way.

Posted by: Steve at March 7, 2007 06:43 PM

The nice thing about enemies is you never have to worry about what will Piss them off because everything you do that strengthens your position will do just that. The really crappy thing about friends is that the same things will piss them off too.......it's a loos loose situation so to heck with what any one else thinks. It's time we made our selves less vulnerable by make our enemies mor vulnerable. If they don't like they can build a better bomb shelter or find a deeper cave.

Posted by: James at March 7, 2007 06:29 PM

It is insane to think that this is even close to a good idea. Our country wonders why everyone thinks we are huge hypocrites, well here you have it. While this will not bolster our nuclear weapon supply, it is still going to really piss our enemies off. We have been walking around yelling at Iran about researching nuclear capabilities because of the chance that they may be doing it for weapons and now here we are creating our own new warhead. Good idea George, good idea.

Posted by: Geoff at March 7, 2007 06:06 PM

It is a misconception that John repeats concerning the benefits that congressmen receive. I suggest that one take a look at http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031200a.htm
to see what the actual benefits are.

Posted by: Jim at March 7, 2007 05:32 PM

This really makes sense, in this day and age, where our administration is trying to keep others from developing these weapons that we would still be developing them. If they could develope a weapon that you could drop or whatever to kill just the terrorist, then I'm for it. This I believe will never happen. All we are doing is reopening the Cold War days.

Posted by: Tim Morrall at March 7, 2007 05:30 PM

To All,

If keeping our arsenal up to date is required, then it is required. I have no problems with that. Just remember, believing because we have an arsenal, is going to stop a terrorist from using a WMD on our soil is just plain foolish. The best post here is from Doug of the UK. He understands reality and common sense. If we need to upkeep our arsenal, our government should do it in secret. Not escalate a new fucking arms race. MAD will not work in todays world. Not to mention the Russians seem to have less and less to live for.

Posted by: James at March 7, 2007 05:17 PM

I forgot to add that J's Saudi Arabian tour was 1963-64

Posted by: Mrs. Jack McMullen at March 7, 2007 05:04 PM

As the widow of a career USAF Officer I just have two comments. When my husband returned from his unaccompanied year in Saudi Arabia he told me if there is ever another world war it will start in this (Middle East) part of the world. His other comment was when he returned as a volunteer to Vietnam was that we never should have been there in the first place.

Posted by: Mrs. Jack McMullen at March 7, 2007 05:02 PM

Will you please post more details?

Posted by: Li Na Kuo at March 7, 2007 05:00 PM

Hello Fellow Americans,
Just a line to say hey and we need to up-grade all munitions, nuclear and conventional. Second, we need to give to the war fighters the same golden parachute Congress gave to itself. A lifetime of the same pay as you get plus a cost of living boost. Third, IF we were in any other country, we would not be talking about this openly. That would be treason and a deathe sentence, as it is in the nations described by our president as the " Axis of Evil".

On number one; (the up-grades of weapon systems),
Since WW2 we have not dropped one, ONE, atomic bomb in anger, although we have accumulated thousands and hold them to defend ourselves. Iran has given the green light to giving weapons of mass destruction to Syria, Hezbollah, Al-Quada, and anyone else with the one goal of destroying our fighters and the unstable government of Iraq. They do not want Iraq to be free, neither do they want to see Israel to exist. For that matter, they wish all infidels, (us) to die or submit to their religeon, one which is stuck in the middle ages and at war constantly with themselves and the rest of the world.

Second; Congress has given itself a golden parachute that states; if one is elected, they will continue to recieve the same pay for the rest of their lives plus the cost of living raises. The money comes to millions of dollars anually. That money should go to the war fighters. I see no reason to keep the Congress on the dole forever while letting the fighting men and women fend for themselves, ie. get a job after leaving the service.

Third; This is the land of the free and the home of the brave. It has one, ONE, President,(like him or not) that gives orders to all troops. They have no say where they go, what they do, or when to stop. Congress wants to stop the President from commanding the troops alone, insisting that a leaky committee should first agree. And before I leave you with your thoughts, polls whether good or bad do not govern this country. It does not matter what the average person on the street thinks about the "abuse" of Guantanamo. In war the Geneva convention only gives rights to those in uniform. All others are either spies or saboteurs and should be shot. We have one commander. He does not have to listen to the numbers of the polls, the congress, or , for that matter, us except at election time. We voted him in and gave him the power to do what was in our best interest, and he, to my knowledge is doing just that, doing things in our best intersest. Giving the polls and Congress the power to make war, or do the President's job is lunicy and unconstitutional.
One nation under God.
One nation undivided.
One nation with one goal, to win, and to stay on top of the rogues of this world. To make them think twice before they act and give them no sanctuary and no quarter. They have given us none.
Praise God that we live in this country. Pray for the troops to win and come home. Praise those who stand up to bullies and murderers.
Ask God to forgive us. But keep the munitions going down-range, conventional or nuclear.
Semper Fi.

Posted by: John Mitts at March 7, 2007 04:27 PM

Mark

You said:

"I struggle to believe the idiocy of some of the people in this country. I'd MUCH rather fight this war on the streets of Baghdad than on the streets of New York or Washington."

Go do it then. Go get involved. Be proactive. Dont just rest on your laurels.

Posted by: James at March 7, 2007 03:52 PM

As I read some of the comments of people who wrote; I try to see every point of veiw. But please understand that President Bush is doing right. What will you say if we were fighting over here? Would you blame the goverment for not being prepared. What was said about Bill Clintion, and
having Usama Bin Lama 10 times and nobody did much
about that. It really bothers me that the media is not reporting all news. The fusilauge that was found in Iraq and the 6 truck loads chemicals that
The Isrealies intercepted going into Seria; not mention, How the media revealed secrets of the way
our goverment was tracking teroist activities. We
are at war and I hate it but I will not do anything to undermine it. Was there a better way to fight it? Well hind sight is always 20/20. I have been in the Marines-BLT 2/8 invasion of Grenada and releive the Marines that had the 250
that died in Beriut. I think it is wrong for our country to set idle and let the world go to pot.
I think its wrong for politics to be used to manipulate people aganst our President. John Kerry
should step down he has shame our country and President. The man has voted down every military
advancement of our country and humilated our military.I know we all don't agree about what is going on and the price that some people have paid
in this war;but, we need to stick together. The teroist are watching and will do anything to widen the gap of our country.I also suggest that
we spend time in prayer so we can help deliver our
people from danger, to know the truth from a lie,
and to keep ourselves in gratitude and humility.

Posted by: Jack at March 7, 2007 03:36 PM

As a Brit I staunchly defend America both idealogically and morally. I believe in your democracy and admire most of the things which America stands for. However, whilst it militarily would be impossible to disarm your nuclear arsenal without risk I question whether this is the right moment in time to make a declaration of intent about modernising and building a replacement nuclear arsenal?

Many of the coments about America being a target of attack by terrorist groups armed with nuclear weapons or material would seem to me to be quite reasonably founded. However, how would you respond to that? Without definitive proof of who was responsible how would you punish such an act? Even if you could identify who was responsible are you entitled to drop a nuke on a whole country simply because some of its citizens happen to originate from there and are members of a terrorist group?

The nuclear arsenal the US holds at present SHOULD be enough to deter anyone from contemplating an attack on her but it doesn't does it. Why? The fact is that the majority of your enemies at present are idealogically opposed to you for religious reasons and see self sacriface as noble and a passport to heaven. Your nuclear arsenal will not deter them anymore than increasing troop numbers in Iraq has deterred suicide bombers.

M.A.D has only worked until now because those who opposed you valued the concept of their existence enough to be frightend of what would happen should they push the button first. The new enemies of America do not value their earthly existence as sacred and actively proclaim the sanctity of martydom. How does a nuclear weapon persuade them to not attack you anymore than it does the suicide bombers of Iraq?

What is more concerning to me is that Russia which has never had reason to rush headlong into a new nuclear arms race will now be persuaded that the risk to their soverignty will oblige them to renew their own arsenal. If only to counter the potential risks of lack of credibility.

Unfortunately, I fear that the potential ramifications of the US announcing renewing her nuclear arsenal will be simply to embolden those who say that they too must have a nuclear weapon if they are to protect their own interests. Surely in a world of uncertainty and suspicion this is the last thing that the US really needs?

Doug McCoy UK

Posted by: Doug McCoy at March 7, 2007 03:29 PM

The whole Middle East is getting poised for Ezekial 38 in the Bible. Those same ones who you said come crawling out from under the rocks won't be laughing in the long run! They will tell the rocks to fall on themselves, justice my friends is just around the corner with God. Revelation 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
go to the website: http://www.raptureready.com/
You may be in for a surprise, and what is down the road will make nukes pale in comparison!

Posted by: R. Rush at March 7, 2007 03:22 PM

Dave - Be honest. Have we really taken Iraq? I dont think so. You cant move anywhere in that country without the very real risk of death at any moment. Mark Bowden has plenty new fodder for a sequel to his best seller. We have never won a war against insurgencies in our history. Have we? Can it really be done? Nonetheless, your points on our internal conditions are flawless. Kudos on that!

Posted by: James at March 7, 2007 03:18 PM

Barbara, to answer your question, much of it goes to their intensions with the weapons. Naturally we will try to force countries that we consider dangerous to disarm, even if we are armed. It's in our best interest, and being fair or leading by example like we learned in kindergarten doesn't apply here. The leader of Iran has said that Israel must be wiped out. This is a bad intention. In our world, we try to consider who the bad guy is over whether it is fair or not. The discussions over who has a "right" to have nukes is invalid. No one does, as there is no such right. One either has them or not. We have them, and so do many countries, but that doesn't mean we can't try our best to use diplomacy and talk other countries out of the responsibility of making, guarding, testing, using or selling them. It's really that simple.

Posted by: Bud at March 7, 2007 03:12 PM

I love this country. The time I served was full of pride and respect. I have upmost respect for all of my brothers and sisters who have and/or are serving our great nation and the people in it. It's time for us to remember the very basics. We are at serious risk of internal threats. We have a very real risk of having deeply imbedded terrorist cells here in the states. We import so many goods that customs can't keep up with all of the inspections. Our number one responsibility above all else is to protect our country. After 911, we suffered huge loss on the stock market and billions were lost. If only one small attack can cause so much damage, what would happen if the same size attack would happen at the NYSE? our nation would easily be parralized. We need to return to our most basic of principles. In all of history, After one country had defeated another, the winning country would then have taken the won land and resources as it's own. When did that stop and why? We took Iraq. We won. It should be ours and all of it's resources. And, even if we do give it back to the people of Iraq, then they need to repay us the 45 billion we spent in freeing it's people. Some people believe that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. Wheather we should or not doesnt matter now. We are there. We could have just taken it if we wanted anyway. So many people have gotten Soft or want to believe in Peace. It's a nice dream but, will never be a reality. It never has been in history, and never will be. What keeps us safe is our ability to kick the crap out of any opposition. Period. Our great nation has gotten soft and is listening to the bleeding hearts. Our great nation has become so "Politically Correct" that we are tightening the noose of around our own necks. Profiling IS good and effective. We can not be too carefull. Especially when it comes to protecting our citizens and interests of our Great nation. Shut down the borders. Make entry very secure and NO MORE IMMIGRANTS. Yes, the U.S. was founded for/by immigrants but, we now have more than 300 million people. Enough is enough. We dont need any more. We can take Iraq in a week but, we can't stop Mexicans from coming in? B.S. They are invading our country and taking our resources. They are thiefs and we should be able to enforce the policy that everyone of our private citizens have if someone breaks into their homes and tries to steal from us. "Make My Day" laws are designed to protect us from those intending on doing us harm. That is exactly whats happening. It's time to get real. We are already behind the gun on this. We are scrambling to get through red tape when all the terrorists have to do is pull a pin or press a button.

Posted by: David at March 7, 2007 03:04 PM

FUCKIN A !

Posted by: PFC at March 7, 2007 02:55 PM

Ok, I don't understand the logic here. We are demanding that other countries disarm all of their nuclear weapons, destroy all of their labs for weapon development, basically we are asking for disarmament, and here we are flying under the radar building new nuclear weapons? Don't get me wrong I am a faithful supporter of the Bush administration, but this is rediculous. Thats like when your Dad tell you never to smoke while he lights up another one. Are we the country that demonstrates the do as I say not as I do tactics? How can we ever expect others to do what we are not willing to do ourselves?

Posted by: Barbara Davis at March 7, 2007 02:47 PM

Hey Kenny,

SLOWLY back away from the kool-aid.

Posted by: CJ at March 7, 2007 02:39 PM

I am not sure what is going on? We seem like hippo crits sometimes. Of course we need to maintain of edge,similar to a boxer to works out more and has a strict training program ie.. our nucs. However, can the UN come and check out our facility? Is it okay for us to send the message that we can have them , work on them, upgrade them but certain other countries can't because we can't control when they may use them, and we know we are not going to use ours, right .... Its hard to tell at the ground level if programs are for our protection, scare tactics, economic tools, or who really knows ... maybe a little of everything huh? Of course stutes now it more to it than that, but the average person would probably think we are not following our own principles of peace, as we get ready to better equip our military defense for the end. I could go on and on but I'll just sit back and see what happens

Posted by: MC at March 7, 2007 02:34 PM

WONDERFUL!!!!!
Just what we need, another nuke to start the cold war all over again.
You give Bush another nuke and he will use it.
He is not one to learn from the past.
Truly it is amazing that he has not used one so far. But, there is still plenty of time for that.
Until then Keep your eyes to the sky for that orange glow we all know is coming:(

Posted by: Kenny at March 7, 2007 02:29 PM

BMF - Did you fucking miss the point when I said I have been to Baghdad recently. Come ring my neck. I would love to see you try. Heres my email - james.lawson71@gmail.com. Write and Ill send you directions. You are the fucking moron! Given your diatribe on how Saddam treated his people we should be fully engaged in Darfur right now you fucking momo! Would you agree with that? Lets just kill off all of our soldiers for no reason at all. We cant save the fucking world! We need to stop trying! OR why the hell dont you sign up????

Posted by: James at March 7, 2007 02:29 PM

I usually do not join in any of these forums as nothing get resolved, only a bunch of egomaniacs get up on their soapboxes for their 30 seconds of rant and rave. I was a Marine combat ground radio operator in Vietnam from 66 to 68, so don't even start with the you don't know about war. You only disrespect yourselves! Google - Hill 881 and find out what just one of many of the combat experiences I have had! We currently have so many nuclear weapons that we can destroy this whole planet and several more. What sense does it make to completely destroy your home to make the point you have a bigger dick than the other guy. This is not a dick wagging contest boys! When you all get rid of your ridiculus ego and testosterone maybe you will realize that destroying this planet is not a solution. This whole idea of "Fighting for Peace is like F*#@*ing for Celibacy. What an oxymoron!

Posted by: Grunt Hill 881 at March 7, 2007 02:26 PM

It would, indeed, be a wonderful thing if, someday in the future, we could truly "beat & transform our weapons into plowshares". Presently, however, this is not the case. With very real rabid & murderous enemies still running amok; it is very reasonable & necessary to move & transform our existing nuclear warhead stockpile into ever more practically reliable & accurate weapons. Until the civil nations of this World decisively make up their collective minds to coordinate their efforts to rid our planet of the rabid hatred of terrorists & anarchists, then we & our allies must always seek to be at the apex of weaponry & deterrence.

Posted by: Rocky B at March 7, 2007 02:24 PM

What is this the hate/blame AMERICA first crowd's official posting site?All of you supposedly degreed people have spent so much time in the class room you obviouly don't know diddly squat about the real wprld,the world that hate's FREEDOM of thought & self expression. Being a veteran of VIET NAM 7 the son of a WORLD WAR II veteran I find it hard to believe the cowardice of you liberal puke's who think this is such a terrible country if you hate it so bad then get the FRIGGING HELL OUT and go live in some third world toilet where you can't even worship'unless it's allah or buddah or GODless communism.Thank the GOOD LORD ABOVE that we have a real leader not another blow job bill!!!!! If any of those idiot's over pop off a nuke then we need to turn that dessert into a sea of glass. BIG TEX U.S NAVVY 1971-1975

Posted by: don s. at March 7, 2007 02:23 PM

Realistically you would hope that the nuclear arsenal would be modified and updated. It's a simple thing.
This isn't the time to join with other countries and criticize your own defense. to me that's contradictory and ridiculous. You'd have to be completely moronic to think any other country has YOUR best interests in mind when it comes to our defense.

Posted by: tmadd at March 7, 2007 01:50 PM

TO moron
your problem is that you're an EX-marine. I am
a former Marine, who belives the military has a mission to keep the peace. With nukes do we really need the soldiers?

Posted by: mdelgado at March 7, 2007 01:49 PM

...and please pardon my type-o's. My keyboard isn't exactly up to snuff. Thank youNMCI.

Posted by: KMJ at March 7, 2007 01:47 PM

1. This is the world's preeminent political, military and economic power. We should be at the leading edge of weapons development and anything that puts us there is a good thing in my book. Failure to maintain a lead on some of our nuclear competitors will show them that our government is weak, our body politic too insular and secure to care about such things and will lend them and their regional neighbors mor gumption in planning and executing tactically smaller, yet no-less lethal and demoralizing attacks than what can be achieved on the strategic/nuclear level.

2. Regarding our nuclear competitors: Yes, we have them. John Q. Citizen might not see some of our current western "allies" as potential enemies, but then again, John Q. Citizen probably doesn't read a whole helluva lot of history. Sixty years ago, Eurpoe was ripping itself apart, Nippon was ripping asia apart, and we got asked to show up to the game late and win it while tying our bootlaces on the ride over. soxty years from now, we might have a much cleaner, less finite form of energy to rely upon, which will make our collective bones of contention with our Middle Eastern enighbors look like the trite fumblings of an adolescent nation. It hasn't happened yet, however, so in the interim, I'd much rather have the means to hold them at bay should their organization and willingness to cooperate improve and overcome the tribal nature of their current divisions. And let's not forget that the former Soviet Union went through kind of a bad spell in their mortgage payment cycle....what exactly DID they sell off to get ove rthe nut?

3. Treat every American fairly and in accordance with those tenets of the constitution to which every member of the armed forces is sworn to protect. Let's not extend the same courtesy to entire sovereign states who are very much interested in competing with and eroding our preeminence in the world. States are not individuals. They don't have rights and/or responsibilities because there is no international government granting them those things. We have teh right, as humans, to expect proper treatment from one another, regardless of what boundaries we've crossed to get where we are, but it's a pipe dream to think we're always going to have that expectation met. States are not human beings, and their respective governments (to include our own) are charged with setting precedents of behavior for both their current populations and for posterity. If a state acts out of aggression, it deserves to be backhanded and welted by more powerful neighbors who are uncomfortable. Why? That is the way of the world. The sooner our "body politic" understands that and stops thinking that if we extend a courteous, helping hand to...I dunno...Algeria, that Algeria is suddenly going to be able to guarantee free and safe passage to any American traveller that knocks on her door, the sooner we will be able to vote people into office who are actually qualified to MAKE another state look out for our people. States have to be forced to comply with the wishes of other states. The threat of force, tactical or strategic in essence underlies every international trade agreement, every system of treaties, and every other form of international interaction between a powerful state and less powerful states in the system. That force must be verifiable, current and extendable or else it is useless.

In short, this country is NOT coming apart at the seams, as some of our Chicken Little liberals would have everyone to believe. We have problems, of course, and some very serious ones. That doesn't mean we stop paying attention to and responding to the threats posed to us by other states in the international system. A family living in a nasty neighborhood doesn't stop locking the door at night, and doesn't neglect the family guard dog just because there are some running arguments going on.

Build these things. Demonstrate their power and arm our subs and carrier groups with them as soon as possible. Embargoes and "International resolutions" are failing to provide eth appropriate level of motivation to keep some of our less-than-compliant nuclear neighbors playing nicely. If we fail to demonstrate that there is a price to pay for ignoring the international community, and for discounting American nuclear and strategic capabilities, then we will fail to maintain our lead in other arenas and will ultimately fall by the wayside as another crumbled empire. At the moment, our demise is neither a foregine conclusion, nor is it determined to happen, but the clock is ticking and I think most of us are asleep at the wheel.

Wake up, kids. Marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen are not the only ones fighting this war. Neither are our law enforcement agents. Your rights and the means by which you should be HOPING to fulfill your responsibilities as Americans are under attack, and that attack is not coming from outside of our borders. Get smart, get mad, and get working because if you don't, your kids aren't going to have much to thank you for.

Posted by: KMJ at March 7, 2007 01:41 PM

I believe in this country, but not necessarily the view and points being made by our so called leadership. The man that served with me in Viet Nam (Da Nang) is correct in his assessment. More to the point, "Walk softly, but carry a big stick" has served this country and the world for a very long time. Every time our country listens to the idiots, we lose our young men. Now its our men and women that are out there... give their lives meaning. One adult American, one vote. Make em count.

M Barnes, former Sgt. U.S.M.C. (HUE, CHU-LAI, DA NANG)65,66,67 - 0351.

Posted by: Mike Barnes at March 7, 2007 01:36 PM

The US has a right to build whatever weapons they want in order to be able to defend themselves. Using it of course is a different matter. But if they have that right, then so does every other nation. So when the US doesn't allow a nation that's not even under US control to build nukes, and then the US continues to build them, that's where it becomes apparent that America is truly attempting to control and police the entire world.

Posted by: beckwolf28 at March 7, 2007 01:34 PM

"I cannot beleive the asinine comments on this forum. Did the Democratic party hire it's liberal fools to make these postings?"

This is how we as a nation too often find ourselves in the predicaments we do. A total lack of respect or appreciation for the opinions (or cultures?) of those who disagree. An, "I am right and you are wrong" mentality. The very mentality of our current administration; agree with me or be labeled a fool or dare I say, "unpatriotic".
The Bush administration has a 33% approval rating- need I say more?

Posted by: kevnbro at March 7, 2007 01:24 PM

Te thing is we have to protect our land. The HELL with toose that don't feel that way. Thats one reason we had 9-11 and a few others around our land and in other places. I say build what ever is needed to do just that. Hell we go in and blow up the land and distroy everything, then when its all over we rebuild it with our own money HOW STUPID IS THAT> to HELL with them . Let them rebuild there own land we gave our sons daughters and everything else . If we pull out from all the countrys that we are in then those countrys woulden't have SHIT. WE supply the world with everything that is needed to run there own country. This it the only country that I know of that can send $1.00 a day and feed and school and cloth someone in another country . We can't even do that here.

Posted by: Sgt. H. E. ford at March 7, 2007 01:21 PM

First off. Thanks to BMF and Mark and others doing the heavy lifting talking off the boneheaded left extremists posting here. My take on this article has the unique perspective of having grown up in a family that designed some of these wepons and then I served in the Navy carrying them around to keep the world aware that we won't be taking any crap. Georgia Gold became the third most powerful nation on the earth everytime we went on alert. Concerning this "new" warhead, it is essentially a redesign of existing physics packages to make it more reliable. Hence the title, Reliable Replacement Warhead. Some people impune that Los Alamos did not get the design nod because of security. Well, this is partly true, but the real reason that Lawrence "Liverwurst" got the design is political. Money and payback for Los Alamos security scandals. Los Alamos doesn't really loose classified material any more than any of the other labs but there is a lot more political hay to make pointing the finger at L.A. My dad hated Livermore designs with a passion. He considered them all high maintenance and unneccesarily complex and expensive. Only 2 of the 5 warheads in stockpile now are L.L designs and one of them is the one the RRW has to replace. The whole point of RRW is stockpile maintenance and cost reduction as well as keeping the bomb scientists tuned up in case we need them some more down the road. My opinions and thoughts FWIW

P.S. KJB at March 7, 2007 10:35 AM. You don't know anything about what you are talking about. Same with you RTLM at March 4, 2007 02:19 AM

Posted by: Georgia Gold at March 7, 2007 01:17 PM

I cannot beleive the asinine comments on this forum. Did the Democratic party hire it's liberal fools to make these postings?

I AM an ex-Marine. I served in Da Nang Vietnam in 1965-66 (Alpha battery-12th Marines), leaving active duty with the rank of E-5 Sergeant. The people casting dispersions on the US leadership and it's military are of the same ilk as the traitors that sold us out in Vietnam.

Also, some of the people’s claims on this forum are suspicious to say the least. For example, the idiot that claims to be a graduate student but can't form a cohesive sentence and can't spell. I quote: "Most of these absoloutely absurd."

Morons

Posted by: John Dendy at March 7, 2007 12:47 PM

P.S. yada yada yada.

High oil use (SUV, and everything else) = high oil price = Hundreds of BILLIONS in oil dollars to Middle East terrorist supporters, i.e Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, and all the rest.

It will be our own dollars that kill us. Ultimately, we fund the terror that will kill us.

Posted by: Steve at March 7, 2007 12:39 PM

Getting past the charged word "nuclear" for a moment.... This is not our father's nuclear warhead. If one reads the article, it mentions eliminating the need for underground testing. Nuclear weapons are far more advanced now than before, and really should be considered just a very very large conventional explosive. The fallout and residual effects are minimized, the targeted destruction maximized w/o as much collateral damage. The most technologically advanced country in the world would be stupid not to have the most advanced weapons, period.

As far as being hypocritical, it's really much simpler than that. It's perfectly acceptable to me to tell my criminally insane neighbor he can't have a gun, even though I have one. I don't want him to shoot my family. The notion that we all must be politically correct and fair and let everyone have nuclear weapons who wants them is a very foolish and suicidal notion. To hell with fair, what is power worth if you can't use it to keep yourself safe?

Posted by: Bud at March 7, 2007 12:37 PM

I am in awe at the bizarre disconnect from reality that permeates most of these comments.

Close to 200,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have died because of some delusional rant about world freedom. If one tells me that there should have been a plan after combat one would be correct.

Iraq did not have to fall into civil war. The U.S. had NO RIGHT to unilaterally enter another nation militarily. Wonder what Americans would have thought had Canada, France, Japan invaded it to Free enslaved Americans(based on skin color, first time in human history, and one of the most atrocious human rights violations in human history).

To condone the lies of this administration while Osama bin laden dances around FREE is pure stupidity.

The American people are not that stupid. Our own nation is falling apart while we run around the world pretending to be the world police (while enriching a few at the top of the almighty corporations that benefit from War).

No one party has shown they deserve the leadership of this great nation, and no one party should ever have complete power again as demonstrated by the greed and corruption that hung over this country during much of this administrations monarchy.

Posted by: Steve at March 7, 2007 12:28 PM

Ok, so now we are making and designing new nukes. Excellent, as if we had the need for them.
What? we can't kill the world over with all the ones we already have?
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, we will destroy ourselves because we let the silly ass politian just lead us to our demise. Oh yeah and the guy that said something about IRS agents and the paycheck that just keeps geting smaller because of the so called taxes that are taken out, although I don't agree with ringing their necks, after all they are also americans, I agree that every time I look at my check I'm pissed.
The longest living and fuctioning empire perished.
We will not compare ourselves to the infamous Roman Empire, however, the point is we will perrish if we keep letting politics cloud our sences. They just lie and lie one lie on top of the other and we just listen smile cheer and vote for them. The Republicans keep the military strong so vote for them for 4 years and then vote for a democrat which keep the economy strong, this is my way of playing with them like they play with us. I have never in all my years in this country have seen a more knuckel head president than the one we got now. Just keep a war going for what? so many more kids die. What is the purpose? we hide behind our tragedies cry a little than go out like gang busters motivated for war and revenge. Them fact is that the dreadful 9/11 should not have happened if another president would have acted quickly and decisively.
But nooooo we had to go into Somalia and get out ass kicked by some skinny black guys that really did have their shit together. It's the same old story folks, the blue collars keep this country strong we pay the taxes, the poor can't because they are poor, the rich can but won't because of tax breaks and even if they do they don't give a shit cause they are rich. We the blue collars are the ones getting killed by taxes, gas prices, and just the same old lies. In the 50's according to mccarthy there was a communist under every rock, nowadays there is a polititian under that same rock and be careful cause they do crawl.
I love to look at them on television and figure out which one tells the best lie, wow, they are good it's geting to the point that they are becoming actors, yeah we did have one actor as our president, but at least Ronny had charm, some of these guys belong in an insane asylum, not to mention they need some kind of personality, where do they get these guys from? It almost seems that they are cloned from a rock or something.
Have no appeal at all. Oh yeah and I almost forgot that guy or gal up there in the very fist long as hell comment in this same page, it almost seems that you have had your head up your ass for so many years you just don't see the light any more. I have news for you many patriots don't like war, many soldiers, sailors, marines, and flyboys, don't either. So don't wrap your self around old glory and expect to keep us and specially me interested. BEEN THERE DONE THAT.
It seems that you are the one that hasn't been any where, it's always the same the ones that haven't seen shit are the ones wanting conflict all the time. You and war monging Generals. I don't mean old STORMIN NORMAN, that man has got my respect he took care of bussiness and wanted to take care of some more bussiness and was ordered not to. But he kicked ass took names did what he had to do and came back home.
Sgt Tino USMC retired.......

Posted by: Tino at March 7, 2007 12:28 PM

I don't know what all the fuss is about. This may be the way the world will end any way every since the manhattan proj we have been heading down this slippery slope with only one end in site. It's called M.A.D. I think I can see the light at the end of this tunnel and it is a air burst. I will be gald when it's over.

Posted by: Tim Walker at March 7, 2007 12:13 PM

This is pretty interesting. I regularly post on Mil.com and follow the topics pretty close. This is a neat change to that format. I honestly feel that Iran, North Korea and others mean real harm to the U.S.. I find it very possible that a nuclear weapon can be used against us. I'm not alone. Warren Buffet has publically stated that an imminent nuclear nightmare within the U.S. is virtually a certainty. He establishes odds against cataclysmic events for major insurance companies. During the 2004 presidential debates, President Bush and Senator Kerry said the biggest threat facing American people is nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. I agree. I'm not for war of any kind, especially nuclear, but can find comfort in my Commander in Chief using his ability to face up to imminent problems. To plan and prepare for something that we honestly hope never happens, takes courage and faith. It would bother me if we did nothing and ignored the possibility of us as a nation having to use tactical nukes to protect our way of life and our troops. God bless our troops and their leaders. Semper Fi

Posted by: TAH 407 at March 7, 2007 12:12 PM

As an American and a Marine Corps veteran, I'm disgusted at the hypocrosy we project regarding nuclear weapons. We're self-righteous enough to think that we alone have the moral superiority to design, build and maintain nuclear warheads. How can we criticize North Korea or Iran for developing a nuclear defense system when we possess enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over? If we continue on this path of sanctimonious idiocy, we can rest assured that the nations of this world will unite against us and the only conclusive outcome will be the destruction of humanity as we know it.
Call me a peace-nik if it makes you feel superior- and be sure to remind me of how right you were when you're fighting for uncontaminated scraps of food and drinkable water with the few others who may have been unfortunate enough to survive.

"Boy, we sure showed them!"

Posted by: kevnbro at March 7, 2007 12:09 PM

no offense David, but saying you are a Marine on the internet really holds no sway since ANYONE can claim the same thing and no one can prove that they aren't. your name might not even be David for all I know.

Forgive me if I sound rude, but its true. Don't get me wrong, I support the military and am very much considering joining after college, but when you're posting 'I'm a Marine, nuff said.' online sadly isn't enough.

Posted by: Ryan at March 7, 2007 12:08 PM

First of all, I'd like to express my sincere thanks to all our military personnel around the world for their service - but especially to those serving in the combat zones of Afghanistan & Iraq.
As an ex-military man myself, I don't agree with those that say this is a "useless war", or that we shouldn't be there. And I'm constantly amazed at those with such short term memories who seem to have forgotten EVERYTHING about 911! Is there ANYONE out there who really thinks that the attacks on 911 were that "last"??? Is there anyone out there who really believes that, "if we don't bother them, they won't bother us"???? And is there anyone out there who REALLY thinks that we can somehow negotiate with these fanatical Islamist who LIVE for the opportunity to kill an American????? If anyone can truthfully answer YES to any of the above questions, then I feel sorry for you AND for anyone (including your families!) who depend on YOU to defend & protect them!
The fact is, that there is well documented and undeniable PROOF that there are on-going plans by several well funded groups to launch more (and more devastating!!) attacks on Americans just as soon as they are able to do so. And anyone who doesn't believe this is living in a very dangerous "fantasy" world. We will be fighting these people SOMEWHERE for the foreseeable future, and God help us if we're ever forced to leave the middle east - either by our own weak-kneed politicians OR by the diminished will of the American people. For if our military is unable to continue the fight there in the middle ease, surely we will ALL be fighting this war in the streets of the United States one day. And the lifestyle that we've all come to love & cherish will undoubtedly be altered forever.
It's only by the grace of God and the dedication of our armed forces that we're able to live the lifestyle we live today, and I for one don't want to give it up - especially to a bunch of radical Islamist who despise us just because of our freedoms! The really sad thing to me, is that from the age of toddlers, there are segments of the Islamic religion that are being taught to hate & kill Americans and anyone else who disagrees with their views. These people are creating future generations of terrorists who will invariably find more ways to attack us, and an increasing number of willing accomplices.
For those of you who think we shouldn't be in Iraq (or Afghanistan), please answer me this question: are you willing to risk the types of ruthless & brutal attacks that happen everyday on the streets of Baghdad, in your OWN neighborhoods?? Think about it!

Posted by: radcox at March 7, 2007 12:06 PM

Ok people, let me start by saying that I hold a degree and also served alonside the worlds finest! I am a Marine....nuff said.! I have some doubts about the path this country is taking now that there is liberal control in power. However, I do thank GOD (yes I said GOD, and I dont care if it offended you!) that we live in a country where we can disagree and it wont cost us our lives. Even though that is what we are coming to if some people gain the Presidency (Mrs Clinton!).
Saddam did have WMD's and he would've used them...we gave him an advanced notice of our arrival and he had plenty of time to move them! So as for us making a new warhead...GOOD....it makes it that much safer for us! Koreans and Iranians are gonna use theirs we all know that but when (not IF) we lay waste to their countries hopefully we can accept the fact that those BRAVE men & women that are serving are gonna be provided the absolute best in order to FINISH THE JOB!!!!!!!
SEMPER FI!

Posted by: David at March 7, 2007 11:58 AM

James, you are a moron! You have no earthly clue what “oppression” is! The Dixie Idiots spouted some offensive crap off to a foreign audience, and their fans didn’t like it, so they stopped buying their music! If you think that’s oppression, you should just shut the hell up. The Dixie Chicks indeed!

I’ll tell you what oppression is you ignornat child! Oppression is when your daddy says that Hussein should not attack their neighbors in Kuwait, and when a neighbor overhears it and reports it to the Republican guard there is a knock on your door in the middle of the night. They drag your whole family into the front yard and beat your father half to death while taking their turns raping your mother in front of the whole neighborhood. While her screams echo off your neighbor’s houses your daddy is thrown into a waiting truck never to be heard from again (ten years later a US forensics team identifies his body in a mass grave holding thousands of people who went through the same torture). After they are finished with your mommy they throw he into a truck too (see same thing that happened to daddy). Now, so that the spawn of these seditious traitors doesn’t grow up to pose a threat to the regime, you and your brothers and sisters are thrown into a children’s prision which none of you will ever return from. The daily raping and beatings you undergo will make your life very short and unpleasant.

American soldiers were throwing up when they came upon Hussein’s children’s prisons, and they saw what had gone on there.

You make me so unbelievably angry I want to wring your skinny little neck! You have no idea what oppression is, but my guess is that if the rest of the country is as ignorant as you are we are all going to find out first hand as a dhimi, and then maybe, after a few generations of bondage, if we can free ourselves, we won’t raise our children in such utter ignorance!

Posted by: BMF at March 7, 2007 11:51 AM

I struggle to believe the idiocy of some of the people in this country. I'd MUCH rather fight this war on the streets of Baghdad than on the streets of New York or Washington. Saddam didn't attack us?? Please. Neither did Adolf Hitler. But the threat posed to us by Saddam was every bit as real as the threat posed to us by Nazi Germany. Saddam didn't have WMDs? Again, pure idiocy. We KNOW he had them because he USED them against his own people. And have you ever heard of Gulf War Disease? Where do you think that came from? Our inability to find them after the US invasion only means Saddam was either successful in hiding them or more likely, successful in sending them off to Syria and other terrorist-promoting countries before our attack.

The peace-niks in this country would just have us bury our heads in the sand and act like 9/11 never happened. They would rather have us focus on more important things like Anna Nicole Smith's burial dress or Britney Spears' hairstyle. What is it going to take for this country to wake up? A nuclear bomb going off in lower Manhattan? No...because then these same people would blame George W. Bush for not doing anything to stop the terrorists. People think we can fight a war without suffering losses. That's ridiculous. We still have lost far fewer troops than in any other war we've fought. I want the troops to come home too...but not before the job is done. It's tragic how the liberal idiots of this country have politicized this war for their own personal agendas and attempts to regain political control of the U.S. If they are successful, thousands, perhaps millions more of our citizens will pay with their lives.

Posted by: Mark at March 7, 2007 11:44 AM

when everyone gets off there soapbox
stand in a line
shoud bad language at the bad guys
watch as your skin heats to the temp.of the sun

by the way, at least we"can" say what we believe with out fear.
this is the best country in this world bar none.and it will be for my children and grand children..ok so i'me. old...

Posted by: baran,sw at March 7, 2007 11:44 AM

I don't believe the anti-war/anti-American posts on this page come from veterans or patriots. Oh, I believe you hold degrees, but I don't believe that you were in the military, and even if you were, I highly doubt that you've been deployed overseas, seen combat, or understand, at all, the people you claim to be championing against American aggression. You claim that you a patriotic for your “dissent”, yet in order for that to be true you must understand what loyalty to this nation, its Constitution, and the underlying principals of its founding actually mean in our shared reality, and not merely in the reality you create for yourself to justify the “dissent” from which you derive your self esteem.

I have no doubt that you have convinced yourselves that you are deep, culturally connected thinkers who are decrying American intervention and American power for the benefit of people you have never met. I have no doubt that you believe that the Iraqis were better off under Hussein. I have no doubt that the dripping morally superiority in your posts comes from your own venerated self esteem, and the platitudes you write in are invariably to assuage your guilt for hating that which defends and protects you.

“WE” hold a few truths to be self evident, meaning that they are not worth debating with small people who think that “dissent” equals patriotism. “WE” believe in a few things that your deep cultural awareness and deep ignorance of the human condition has blinded you towards. This is no silly meta-narrative. This is the reality we all must share.

No people enjoy slavery. No people enjoy fear. No people like seeing their children grow up in a world of uncertainty where they are powerless to influence their own lives. No people enjoy having their god given rights taken away by authoritarians no matter if they pose as do gooders, or as utopian saviors.

It seems to me that you simply don’t believe a few things that make this country what it is, and that is why it is so easy for you to throw rocks and then claim that you are having some sort of dialog and “dissent” that is patriotic in some obtuse way. If you do not believe that our rights are not God given, then you do not understand patriotism or America. If you believe that human beings are capable of voting our rights away, or that power hungry men can take them no matter how good their reason, then you do not understand patriotism or America. If you believe that the covenant our founders formed when they created this nation is for a single race of people, or a single culture, then do not understand patriotism or America.

You could be the greatest anthropologist the earth has even known, but if you told me that certain cultures, because of tradition, tribalism, religion, or whatever other excuse you attempt to use revel in their own misery and slavery I will call you an ignorant fool. That is exactly what you appear to be trying to convince us of while declaring your moral superiority for doing so. It is an offensive viewpoint, and one that has been used countless times to justify evil. I don’t believe that you are evil, but your ignorance rises to a near criminal level.

You are not only ignorant of man’s natural state, freedom, but you are also completely ignorant as to the intrinsic nature of a modern totalitarian state that is built and specifically constructed to contain the freedom of individuals within the close control of a police state. How many of you imbeciles have declared that if the oppressed people of the world want freedom they will take it, just like our founders did?

You just don’t get it. You don’t understand how these monsters have terrified their populations. You don’t understand the control they exert where children turn their parents in for seditious comments. You don’t understand because you haven’t seen it. Some of us have, and that is why we despise ignorant smart guys like you. You are scum, because you take it upon yourself to talk about things you have no earthly concept of, and then you denigrate those of us who know what we’ve seen, and believe it is our duty as human beings to STOP it.

There is no doubt that our government is selective in choosing which evils it will confront, but to try and claim that they are not evil is where you fall flat on your face, and display your true motives for all to see.

I can’t stand you ignorant, sanctimonious, scumbags. How dare you bandy about the word “traitor” when it has virtually lost all meaning in an atmosphere where anti-American, anti-human rights tripe gets called “patriotism”. You don’t deserve the freedom we bleed to give you, and should your ignorant side win the political battle I am quite sure that you will loose it for everyone. That is exactly what we will deserve too, and you and your ilk will be the most shocked that you find yourself in the very same place you wish to keep other people because they don’t look like you, or share your culture. A pox on you. Nuthin’ says luvin’ like an incurable skin disease!

Posted by: BMF at March 7, 2007 11:36 AM

Maybe we should drop MOABs and not worry about the nukes.

Posted by: murvihillworks at March 7, 2007 11:18 AM

hello, i served in the us navy as an active duty under pres. reagan and 3yrs in naval reserves under mr. bush jr. i will tell you we live in the best and the most freedom loving country in all the world. i have traveled the world far and wide and we enjoy an abundance of freedom that i would gladly help to defend. while i do agree that nukes need to be kept in their place, if we do not persue the technology, then some one else will. then that some one may come over here and take over, unless the usa keeps its position on the world stage. it is dangerous either way you look at it!

Posted by: cornelius minor at March 7, 2007 10:40 AM

This is in regards to Big Sarge's email. He stated that our country does not oppress like Iraq and N.K. I can agree to some extent on that, however, our country does oppress in numerous other ways that, while not as barbaric as public lynchings (although, that is part of our history), oppression is ever present. There is a war going on economically in this country. There is a war going on socially in this country. While you can say we have freedom of speech in this country, there is a war on that going on right now as well. If you're a Dixie Chick and your career is temporarily destroyed because of your personal belief on our President, that's oppression. If you happen to dislike gays and are in the public eye, you are forced to undergo counseling to get rid of that mentality. If your kid is overactive, they receive Ritalin (a more dangerous drug than marijuana). If you're a senior citizen without medical insurance, you are undergoing a form of oppression.

Sure, we may have certain inalienable rights, but they can and will be taken away from you if our Federal Government deems that necessary. Look at the countless muslim citizens rotting away at Guantanimo. Should you be forced to rot in a cell just because you 'might' have a terrorist mindframe? How many time have you wanted to wring the neck of an IRS agent every time you see your paycheck withered down to nothing?

To say that our country does not oppress is rediculous. We have sent troops into Iraq and have killed over 500,000 iraqi citizens for useless oil...this is rediculous, especially since our government can provide enough energy for the entire world if they simply installed solar panels/wind panels in various regions of the Arizona and Texas deserts. We are sponsoring the killing of Iraqi citizens for an energy supply that destroys everything but the pockets of oil tycoons.

Our Drug War...do I even need to get into that one, both the legal and illegal drug wars...what a waste of time. Our country has mastered oppression and hides behind terms like counter-terrorism to substantiate their actions. Take a look at what our country did in Vieques, a little known island off the coast of Puerto Rico. They killed and destroyed countless Puerto Rican families in order to perform military war tests on that island. Is that not oppression?

No one can feasibly contemplate actual oppression unless it is occurring to you in the present. We are all oppressed to some degree by our government. We may have free speech to a certain extent. We may have certain rights, within moderation...but one day, one day when you take a look in the mirror and realize that there are other nations out there that are not that different from the U.S. and are in better economic situations, perhaps then your eyes will awaken to the reality of both the good, and the bad with our country.

Posted by: Saint at March 7, 2007 10:40 AM

BM Cutty - The way you write I hardly believe you are a graduate student. I am all for this country defending itself any way possible. However, the reason we have to defend ourselves is because we continue to be a nation of "manifest destiny". Ive been in the military, have a degree, and have been to Baghdad recently. We do it to ourselves. We never look at history's lessons. We go out assuming everyone wants to be like us and try to make it so. It just doesnt work. Does it need to be said again? Saddam Hussein did not attack us! Yet since we are so incompetent (at least this current administration) in foreign policy and diplomacy, we have to pick a fight. We are many times LESS safe and many times MORE vulnerable than we were September 10th 2001. Our soldiers die each day for a worthless cause. The majority of service people (through no fault of there own) are not defending us. They are not defeating worldwide terrorism. They are not giving us our freedoms. The current administration is using them as pawns, and are slowly eroding our freedoms and our security. Sorry, service-people, I salute you, but thats just the way it is. Period, end of story.

Posted by: James at March 7, 2007 10:35 AM

Bush Administers To Coneheads Leads World In Nuclear Warhead Worship Services...

And God bless it's pointed little warhead...

Where is the IAEA Non-Proliferations Treaty, now empowered, and checkmating Mr. Bush's desire to posses more power and deny him this cancer causing strategy? It is a well known fact that the over 1,100 Nevada nuclear weapons testing was the direct cause of cancer in USA. In WW 2 only 2 atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, Us Government later went on to pulverize itself with over 1,100.

Over 10,000 US Nuclear Arsenal didn't stop the work of 19 terrorists on 9/11/01, neither did the Bush Administration.

Posted by: KJB at March 7, 2007 10:35 AM

"IT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT THAT THE TWO NATIONS I'VE MENTIONED HAVE SAID THEY WOULD USE THEIR NUKE WEAPONS AGAINST US AND OUR ALLIES AND OTHER NATIONS THEY DISLIKE."

N.K. has nukes and has not used them on any U.S. allies. The point is nukes are not for safety, they are for mutual destruction. Maybe we should invade Cuba for oppressing its people but only if they had something we need. Defense Secrecy should be a higher priorty then I wouldn't be posting on this.

Posted by: u238 at March 7, 2007 10:24 AM

THe thinking that no other military can be compared to the US at this point is just ignorant. With CHINA becoming a awakining giant in the world and our own congress choking our ability to fight hard and send a real message of our power is setting us up for a challenge of global porportions. We need to step things up with new technolgy and new advanaces as much as possible in this country. Other wise we will have more terrorists and sponsoring countries growing bigger gonands than they already have.

Posted by: TELMCO at March 7, 2007 10:20 AM

We need a bigger badder nuclear deterrence now more than ever. China is a bigger threat than the Soviet Union ever could have been

Posted by: BubbleHead at March 7, 2007 10:19 AM

IT NEVER CEASES TO AMAZE ME ALL THE POLITICAL TALKING POINTS THAT COME OUT ON THESE TYPES OF POSTINGS. "WE ARE ONLY IN IRAQ FOR OIL" ' "WE ARE HYPOCRYTS, BECAUSE WE TELL IRAN AND NORTH KOREA THEY CAN'T HAVE NUKES AND OTHER NATIONS". WHEN WILL COMMON SENSE EVER BE POSTED? TO CATAGORIZE THE U.S. WITH IRAN, NORHT KOREA AND OTHERS IS ABSURD. WE DO NOT OPRESS OUR PEOPLE MILITARALY OR JAIL, TORTURE AND WORSE YET EXECUTE THEM FOR HAVING OPOSING POLITICAL IDEAS THAN THE REIGNING POWER. IT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT THAT THE TWO NATIONS I'VE MENTIONED HAVE SAID THEY WOULD USE THEIR NUKE WEAPONS AGAINST US AND OUR ALLIES AND OTHER NATIONS THEY DISLIKE. SO I ASK YOU WHAT IS WRONG WITH US IMPROVING OR REDESIGNING OUR EXISTING NUKES TO ENSURE OUR SAFETY? THIS WILL NOT ADD TO OUR EXISTING ARSENAL. IT MAY EVEN REDUCE IT IF THE UPGRADES MAKE IT MORE ACCURATE AND RELIABLE. I AM FOR IT. IRAN AND NORTH KOREA WOULD NOT HESITATE TO STRIKE THE U.S. IF THEY COULD WITH NUKES. THEY SAID THEY WOULD!

Posted by: BIG SARGE at March 7, 2007 10:06 AM

There are some here who don't seem to believe that we could become not only venerable, but dead. That is an arrogant attitude and shows a lack of understanding of the world. This country is NOT invincible. It never has been. We are just rich, and we will always have to defend ourselves. Those of you in the Military on this board who don’t get that need to do some soul-searching. We MUST continue to fight for our freedom and our way of life. It will never be free to us. Not unless the world becomes like us and they won't anytime soon.

Posted by: Bill at March 7, 2007 10:02 AM

wlgriffi: I would like to hear a solution from you then. A difference of opinion is welcome but without an alternative serves no purpose. I wish NO ONE had nukes. But the minute we get rid of ours, our enemies WILL destroy us with theirs. That is a fact.

Posted by: Bill at March 7, 2007 09:52 AM

I am a graduate student and a veteran of the USN. Most of these absoloutely absurd. The US does not need any more damn weapons. We are the most powerful nation in the history of the world. there isn't not a real standing army that could compete with us. Think about it: our military spending does not mean much for the soldiers because all of the money goes to weapons developement and production.
Secondly, why all this attention on others developing weapons of mass destruction when we spend the most in the history of the world on those same weapons. Give the soldiers a raise!

Posted by: B.M. Cutty at March 7, 2007 09:50 AM

This is just another example that we will set the law and not live by it. Maybe this new design will fix the budget, medicare or the fact that 1 American is working to support 4 other American citizens. We should spend more money on something that we will never used. (commodities have gone up by a multiple of 4 in the past 2 years and with the 10 year economic cycle, you better be prepared for tough times ahead)

N. Korea and Iran do not scare me. We are in Iraq and possibly Iran due to oil. No other reason. Funny but we are not in N. Korea why, no resources. Remember that Iran and Iraq have not even tested a Nuke but N. Korea has! I guess I should be glad that I can fill my gas tank at $2.48.

Posted by: U238 at March 7, 2007 09:44 AM

We should keep our military capablities more of top classified information. This info serves no purpose for the security of our country. Some things just need to be classified. I would think our nuclear capabilities would be at the top of the list.

Posted by: Dave at March 7, 2007 09:31 AM

To suggest that The United States is less responsible than Iran, North Korea or other rogue nations is absurd. We must stay on top of advanced weapons to protect ourselves and our allies. Weapons developed by us are used as defensive weapons. No country can say we ever have taken over another country to gain land. Any time we have gone to war with another nation was in self-defense. No nation fears our intentions to take over their country, they fear a consequence to aggresive actions toward this country.

Posted by: Ronald Lewis at March 7, 2007 08:36 AM

Although nuclear weapons may seem like the end of the world as we know it, if we had not of had, nor used our advanced technology in WWII, we would not be the United States of America today. Iran would love to see us allow our nuclear arsenal to become old and obsolete. Don't think for a minute that Iran, or N. Korea would not detonate a nuclear device in the Continental United States if they could, THEY WOULD! We need to upgrade our nuclear arsenal, and keep it the most modern arsenal in the world. These rogue countries need to know that we have, and that we will use, our nuclear weapons if we have to. I support the upgrade to our nuclear arsenal.

Posted by: T. Vance at March 7, 2007 07:14 AM

Hypocrites. This Administration want's it both ways. It want's others to forgo weapon development yet do it ourselves. Trying to justify it by declaring our development is merely modifification of present stockpiles is nothing but hypocrisy.

Posted by: wlgriffi at March 7, 2007 06:31 AM

Good Afternoon Folks,

Like it or not the U.S's. Nuclear Arsenal is a national defense asset and needs to be maintained and modernized. Although all of us I'm sure hope the day won't come when nuclear arms will be called upon again, we must keep be ready.

This is not unlike the 1990's when all the best and the brightists minds though that war was unthinkable. 9/11 corrected that thinking and our forces are still playing catch up six years into the current conflicts.

Those who want to control nuclear arms should be supportive of this program. Both the size and numbers of nuclear warheads will be reduced under this program. That means fewer nukes in existence and if the time ever came to use a nuclear weapon the U.S. would be able to do the job with far less colloidal damage to both civilians lives and property.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at March 4, 2007 05:51 PM

Re "The decision to move ahead with the warhead, which eventually would replace the existing arsenal of weapons, has been criticized as sending the wrong signal to the world at a time when the United States is assailing attempts at nuclear weapons development in North Korea and Iran and striving to contain it"

The critics, such as Sen Feinstein, should ask themselves that by doing nothing,should we be sending the world a message ensuring that our nukes are less reliable and less tamper-proof?
What we do with our nukes will hardly influence regimes like Iran and N. Korea.

Posted by: j house at March 4, 2007 02:35 PM

I'm pleased Lawrence Livermore got he contract. I'd just as soon keep this technology a secret among United States personnel. No need to email the plans to China - which is what would happen if Los Alamos were involved.

Posted by: RTLM at March 4, 2007 02:19 AM