U.S. faces bigger issues than hitting Iraq. A former Japanese diplomat--now chairman of the English-Speaking Union of Japan-- offers a quintessentially Japanese view regarding the manifest folly of a US attack on Iraq. (From The Japan Times). Mr. Hanabusa underscores the formidable difficulty of the victor's creating anything but a puppet "regime change." Since Japan has had some recent experience in this regard, his words merit contemplation by those who favor an immediate attack and damn the foreseeable consequences thereof.
posted by rdone
on Sep 3, 2002 -
26 comments
In the midst of all the talk of possible terrorist deployments of Weapons of Mass-Destruction,
this seems like a somewhat dramatic, if effective, approach to pre-empting the threat of blackmarket nuclear proliferation. The co-operative approach adopted by the U.S and Russia - and presumably the Yugoslav Government itself - also seems encouraging.
Should this 'surprise-attack' approach now be used to negate the threat posed as nuclear facilities are decommissioned worldwide??
posted by Doozer
on Aug 23, 2002 -
3 comments
"The old doctrine was that nuclear weapons were far too big and nasty to use, and now they've moved towards developing nuclear weapons they can actually use".
On the aniversaries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, does the development of
'low-yield nukes' threaten to blur the distinction between conventional and nuclear warfare.
posted by gravelshoes
on Aug 7, 2002 -
29 comments
Nuking Lincoln (via www.dailygrail.com). Thaddeus McMullen, 1864.
"I showed McMullen’s writings to physicists familiar with nuclear fission and they were stunned," Remarsh states. "His bomb was crude, with maybe a tenth of the destructive power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, but it would have worked.
Maybe. I suspect this is a hoax, but it's interesting enough to post it anyway. Now whether the Confederates could have refined the uranium to make the bomb out of is another question. Any physicists care to express an opinion?
posted by aeschenkarnos
on Jul 5, 2002 -
28 comments
Close to home? Worried about transport of nuclear waste? Find out how close to your home it'll pass with this handy map.
In my case, it'll be transported on train tracks that I can see and hear from my bedroom...
posted by delmoi
on Jun 15, 2002 -
24 comments
An Urgent Call to end
The Growing Nuclear Peril.
"A DECADE after the end of the cold war, the peril of nuclear destruction is mounting. The great powers have refused to give up nuclear arms, other countries are producing them and terrorist groups are trying to acquire them. THE DRIFT TOWARD catastrophe must be reversed. Safety from nuclear destruction must be our goal. We can reach it only by reducing and then eliminating nuclear arms under binding agreements." Includes articles, lists of protests and rallies and links to disarmament groups.
posted by homunculus
on Jun 9, 2002 -
10 comments
J. Robert Oppenheimer, watching the first mushroom cloud rise above the American nuclear test heartbreakingly codenamed Trinity, said: "Now I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds." Today, a half century after the first use of atomic weapons, in the birthland of the sacred text Oppenheimer quoted,
12 million people could die at once in a nuclear exchange.
Ah, Shiva as each of us...one hand on The Button, the other writing:
"The only way to live humanly - still - is in resistance to war. The prevention of war, in the nuclear age, must be a central purpose of every person's life."
posted by fold_and_mutilate
on May 28, 2002 -
58 comments
Live near one of these 10 nuclear power plants? They either have cracks in their control rod nozzles or are particularly "vulnerable" to cracking. An inspection at Ohio's Davis-Besse plant led to the
completely unexpected discovery of "the most extensive corrosion ever found on top of an American nuclear plant reactor". Radioactive boric acid leaked out of the cracks and came within a half-inch of
burning a hole through the steel containment dome. NRC officials say this kind of corrosion "was never considered a credible type of concern," but nuclear safety groups have been
warning for years that NRC inaction on this issue was endangering the public.
(more links inside)
posted by mediareport
on May 9, 2002 -
7 comments
Bush
prepares nuclear weapons for use. A classified Pentagon report directs the Defense Department to prepare "smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations," such as "targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack." Potential targets listed include China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. Is the U.S. merely bluffing, or should we begin stocking our fallout shelters?
posted by johnnyace
on Mar 9, 2002 -
9 comments
U.S. Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms -- "The Bush administration has directed the military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries and to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations... The secret report... says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria."
posted by mrbula
on Mar 9, 2002 -
42 comments
so which "officials" do we believe? is this a final salvo from the "now disbanded" office of military misinformation?
i don't know which is spookier the thought of the threat, or the folks in charge getting their "credible" info from some clown in las vegas??
posted by specialk420
on Mar 7, 2002 -
4 comments
The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was in the news 3 and a half years ago when the Senate
failed to ratify a treaty we created. Although there have been no formal talks of ratification since, with all that has been happening
these days, one can't help but wonder if now is the time to act. Bush mentioned earlier of
reducing our nuclear arsenal, but wouldn't ratification be our best solution to control major threats, such as North Korea, Iraq, and Iran?
posted by BlueTrain
on Mar 4, 2002 -
6 comments
Seven minutes to midnight. "Today, the Board of Directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moves the minute hand of the 'Doomsday Clock,' the symbol of nuclear danger, from nine to seven minutes to midnight, the same setting at which the clock debuted 55 years ago. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, this is the third time the hand has moved forward."
posted by dnash
on Feb 27, 2002 -
29 comments
The US reserves the right to turn your weak country to glass. The Bush administration is no longer standing by a 24-year-old U.S. pledge not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, a senior administration official said yesterday.
I fear this news will go unnoticed amidst the terrorism furor.
Why
doesn't our nuclear policy get much press these days?
posted by norm
on Feb 25, 2002 -
63 comments
Nuclear power for the home... A group of woodcutters found an object that had melted the surrounding snow, so they drag it back home to warm the camp unfortunately turns out it was jam packed full of Strontium90...
posted by zeoslap
on Feb 1, 2002 -
26 comments
Canadians figure out exactly how many nukes it would take. Using the software, researchers estimated it would take 124 weapons to destroy the U.S. and 51 to eliminate Russia as a country. The computer program mimics the U.S. military's SIOP, or Single Integrated Operational Plan, which outlines the targeting of America's nuclear weapons and the likely consequences of each attack. [via dailyrotten.com]
posted by skallas
on Jan 4, 2002 -
20 comments
Nuclear Emergency Search Team (NEST) We know about the US "elite" special ops - Delta Forces, Navy Seals, CDC (I would argue) - but had you heard of
NEST, located inside a small, unobtrusive box under "Dept of Energy, Emergency Response" in the New York Times
Office of Homeland Security Org Chart (reg required), "....The primary task of NEST is constantly to be on the lookout for potential nuclear or radiological weapons that might be smuggled onto the U.S. ....After the Sept. 11 attacks on New York City and the Pentagon, NEST was put on a state of high alert and operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week in the nation's capital and New York City monitoring for nuclear-related weapons... includes extensive use of deployed sensors and specially equipped vehicles patrolling the streets of both cities..." I can't decide if I feel safer or more paranoid thinking the windowless minivan parked for the last hour outside my window is sniffing for a nuke.
posted by Voyageman
on Nov 6, 2001 -
12 comments
"Real" Deal about Nuclear, Bio, and Chem Attacks. I've also seen this in the newsgroups, but it hasn't come to my various email accounts yet. While the article seems pretty reasonable, there doesn't seem to be any info on who this SFC Red Thomas is, nor is there any scientific backup (no links to
further reading etc.).
posted by youthbc1
on Oct 21, 2001 -
4 comments
Terrorists eye nuclear plants Monday, October 15, 2001
."...A Kuwaiti man was found with sensitive documents about Ottawa nuclear energy and virus-control labs...."...more paranoia on what's next.
posted by Voyageman
on Oct 16, 2001 -
5 comments
Is Terrorists For Nukes the 2001 version of Arms For Hostages? President Bush has lifted the sanctions on India and Pakistan imposed by the U.S. in 1998 to protest their "tit-for-tat" nuclear tests. In a memorandum just released by the White House, he states that keeping those sanctions in place "would not be in the national security interests of the United States".
Is this an acceptable exchange? Just how far should the U.S. go in appeasing Pakistan, not to mention further fuelling its already explosive confrontation with India?
posted by MiguelCardoso
on Sep 23, 2001 -
8 comments
You dropped a bomb on me... The movie "
Above & Beyond" was on TCM last night. It is about Col Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola Gay, which dropped the first atomic bomb. Surprise: Col Tibbets is still alive, making
appearances & speeches. What do you think goes through his mind when he recalls that fateful day? Would YOU have been able to drop the bomb that ended World War II?
posted by davidmsc
on Jul 18, 2001 -
92 comments
"I had no idea we had so many weapons," he said. "What do we need them for?" "The U.S. nuclear arsenal today includes 5,400 warheads loaded on intercontinental ballistic missiles at land and sea; an additional 1,750 nuclear bombs and cruise missiles ready to be launched from B-2 and B-52 bombers; a further 1,670 nuclear weapons classified as “tactical.” And just in case, an additional 10,000 or so nuclear warheads held in bunkers around the United States as a “hedge” against future surprises."
posted by owillis
on Jun 17, 2001 -
42 comments
Bush's energy plan. We knew it was coming. Arguing the United States "faces the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargoes of the 1970's," Bush proposes the expansion of drilling, a new commitment to nuclear power, and a review of vehicle mileage standards. If you really want to dig--er, I mean drill--into it, the
proposal is available on the White House website.
posted by mrbula
on May 17, 2001 -
36 comments
Sub Surprize - The Sequel. Within two months of sinking a Japanese ship (and 24 hours of a recon plane landing in China) the US Navy have angered the Japanese yet again when the nuclear submarine Chicago showed up at a Japanese port without any prior notice.
Let's make a thread to track all the recent American military mishaps.
posted by tamim
on Apr 3, 2001 -
4 comments
