Last March, the White House put numerous Iraqi government documents online, hoping to "leverage the internet" to find evidence of Saddam's nuclear potential. After questioning from the New York Times this week, the site has now been shut down, as it has been revealed that the Bush administration, by publishing the information, may have publicly published detailed information on how to build atomic weapons. Right-wing bloggers, many of whom have been discussing the documents all year, have seen the sunny side of the news, claiming the real issue of the potential distribution of nuclear plans (which were dated pre-1991) is the "proof Saddam had a nuclear program."
posted by XQUZYPHYR on Nov 3, 2006 - 55 comments

Is George really planning to nuke Iran? Some physicists are worried and have written a letter to the president voicing their concerns. Others have gone one step further and made a flash animation.
posted by piscatorius on Apr 28, 2006 - 77 comments

Sellafield nuclear leak unreported for three months - The Cumbria, UK nuclear waste processing facility has been a constant source of worry and pollution since its inception. Security procedures were called "a bit of a joke" by safety technician Ron Hanas, who was fired for blowing the whistle on the accounting loss of over 30 kg of weapons-grade plutonium, noting as an aside that a section of a uranium fuel rod was found in a worker's desk drawer. Higher levels of plutonium are found in children's teeth as they live in closer proximity to the plant. It makes one think about the current energy policy being written behind closed doors, when the industry can't put basic safety systems in place.
posted by AlexReynolds on May 28, 2005 - 24 comments

Robert McNamara is worried.
posted by threehundredandsixty on May 10, 2005 - 43 comments

We're all to blame. In January 2002, Scott Ritter called Iraq a "phantom threat" and warned us of Ahmed Chalabi's "dubious motivations" for fomenting a war based on phony intel. Now Ritter is saying that we're all responsible for Iraq, because we, as a public, bought into the unproven argument that Iraq had WMDs. In that light, how should we view the Iranian situation? Is it fair for the US to use its power to insist upon arguably hypocritical terms for a fellow signatary to the Non Proliferation Treaty? Doesn't Iran have legitimate rights for nuclear development? Shouldn't we demand proof of a nuclear weapons program before we even consider starting a conflict our military believes would most certainly escalate? The Bush administration says that "there's NO DOUBT that Iran continues a nuclear program"... an obvious lie. There is no proof of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Period.
posted by insomnia_lj on Jan 27, 2005 - 100 comments

U.S. Plans Tidal Wave of Nuclear Proliferation They want to tell all the non-nuclear states: “Y’all must stay non-nuclear, but we’ll have as many nukes as we want. We’ll make new nukes but keep the old. And if you don’t like it, just take a good look at Iraq, because you could be next.” The message coming from the Bush administration and the U.S. media is clear. It’s not about the danger of weapons of mass destruction. It’s about using the fear of that danger, along with our own growing nuclear arsenal, as a club to rule the schoolyard roost.
posted by Niahmas on Jan 6, 2005 - 40 comments

"Our enemies seek to inflict mass casualties, without fielding mass armies. They hide in the shadows, and they're often hard to strike," says Bush while signing a new defense bill that includes millions of dollars for a small nuclear bomb designed to destroy deep, hardened underground bunkers. The legislation repeals a decade-old ban on research into low-yield nuclear weapons.
posted by Espoo2 on Nov 26, 2003 - 35 comments

US Lets N. Korea Get Nuclear Data (Boston Globe) "Transfer Pact Stays in Effect: WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has not suspended or revoked the authority of Westinghouse Co. to transfer documents related to nuclear technology to North Korea, despite the fact that the Asian nation has admitted that it violated terms of a nonproliferation agreement it signed with Washington in 1994, US Department of Energy documents show."
posted by troutfishing on Mar 8, 2003 - 43 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

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

"President Bush intends to move ahead with a national missile defense plan despite objections from Russia and other countries." Is it just me, or is Bush on some kind of mission to destroy America as we know it? Does anyone still believe that America is under threat of nuclear annhilation? (other than Dubya?) We are so screwed.
posted by liquidgnome on Jan 26, 2001 - 32 comments