Dammit, What we really need is MORE WMD!
Mood:  incredulous
Topic: Bust those 'bunkers.'
So, the imaginary enemy is known for having imaginary underground facilities where they can hide and produce oodles and oodles of dreaded weapons of mass destruction. I don't know why all these bad people want WMD. Why can't they all be like the U.S. and get over this need for all things nuclear? Well, we wont have to worry any more because all those evil-doers with their undergound bunkers are gonna' get a what's for perty darn soon!

(Chicago Trib.)
"The Bush administration is renewing a push to research and develop a new family of lower-yield nuclear weapons, including the controversial "bunker buster," or Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, that could be used against the underground weapons labs and leadership redoubts of the nation's enemies.

Taking a new approach, the administration is insisting that the nation's existing nuclear weapons stockpile has flaws and is ill-suited to meet current and future threats. Officials are seeking to build several prototypes for new nuclear warheads within the next 7 to 10 years."

Awesome! We already have a record motherfucking deficit with no end in site, a looming social security bankruptcy problem (allegedly), an decaying infrastructure, there just might be something the matter with America's healthcare system, oil is at an even higher all time high than before but dammit...We need NEW NUKES!!!

"Plans call for spending $22.5 million on developing the bunker buster through the next two fiscal years, as well as spending $97 million on lower-yield warhead replacements over the next five years."

What the fuck do we do to do this for?

"Appearing last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Linton Brooks, chief of the National Nuclear Security Administration, said the existing stockpile was designed principally for the Cold War era of high-yield, multiwarhead missiles and is "wrong" for current threats.

He told senators there were a number of compelling reasons for bunker buster research and replacements for the stockpile.

"The stockpile we inherited from the Cold War may not be the right stockpile militarily," Brooks said. "We have no capability against hard and deeply buried targets. Our systems are unsuited for some specialized missions."

He asserted that the administration was not pursuing the development of new weapons beyond the bunker buster, but warned the nation had to prepare for the nuclear armament needs of the future.

"Other than to request completing this modest research and development effort on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, we aren't investigating any capability changes," Brooks said, adding that the U.S. needs to maintain the capability to respond to future threats."

Our current ginormous stockpile of nukes just isn't "right?" WTF!? Oh, we can burn the surface of 'their' country to a radioactive crisp but there's a chance some of them might survive to hate us in the future if we don't develop nukes that can burrow underground and kill them, KILL 'EM ALL!!! LET GOD SORT THEM OUT, MOTHERFUCKERS!!!

Sorry...One question not asked, 'low yield' or not, if we send some nukes burrowing underground to explode what kind of effects on the ground water and the environment in general could that have? I suppose it must be alright as they used to test nukes underground before that was banned a while back. However, surely those environments were controlled better that randomly loosing a bunker buster into the middle of some poor Arab country or North Korea, right? Well, how can we know as the only threats referred to here were those of "the future." We gonna nuke sombody Cold War or not, motherfucks! Is there anyone opposing this?

"But opponents, including some Republicans, argue that these weapons' smaller radioactive yield would make them more likely to be used, and that their very existence could provoke a new nuclear arms race at a time when the U.S. is trying to curb nuclear proliferation.

Taking new approach

Last year, opponents in the House blocked funding for new nuclear weapons research, though the research had been funded in previous sessions. Trying again with a different set of arguments, the administration is asserting that the U.S. nuclear stockpile is perishable, not appropriate for military needs and difficult to protect against terrorists."

I love the "including some Republicans" line which actually means ONE...

"Opponents vow to fight this new initiative, with Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) announcing Friday he had gathered 88 co-sponsors--including one Republican, Rep. Chris Shays of Connecticut--for a measure to strip bunker buster funding from the administration's budget."

Of course, that one Republican is from Conneticut so that doesn't count.

"Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, questioned the attempts to downplay the new program, saying it was clear the administration is bent on having a nuclear bunker buster weapon no matter what.

"It would appear that the administration is committed to going forward with this controversial program, not just completing the feasibility study," Nelson said. "Is [this] an opportunity to have a serious review and discussion of nuclear weapons and nuclear policy? Or is it just an excuse to develop a new nuclear weapon and to return to nuclear weapons testing?"

Markey said, "The development of any new nuclear weapons is a dangerous and wasteful use of taxpayer money.

"The bunker buster should not be funded, because it damages our non-proliferation efforts around the world [and] would, if used, inevitably spread high levels of radiation above ground, potentially resulting in substantial civilian deaths and injuries and property damage."

I hope all you Bush voters are fuckin' happy.