The B53 wasn’t just any old megabomb. It was the first bunker buster. U.S. nuclear doctrine called for it to be delivered over suspected underground Soviet command-and-control facilities. The dumb bomb wouldn’t destroy them so much as it would destroy everything remotely near it, leaving — literally — a smoldering crater. That was the U.S. plan for “victory” in a nuclear war right up until the implosion of the Soviet Empire. (related) [more inside]
posted by Trurl on Oct 25, 2011 - 75 comments

US Rolls out new Nuclear Program. Consolidate nuclear stores. Ok. Plan with "potential for new bomb designs". Whaaaaaa? (partially from here)
posted by phyrewerx on Apr 6, 2006 - 39 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

Bush, Putin agree on missile talks "GENOA, Italy -- U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin have agreed to tie U.S. plans for building a missile defence shield to talks on reducing nuclear stockpiles. " Arms race averted?
posted by nicolotesla on Jul 22, 2001 - 14 comments