I sure hope the UN doesn't hear about this

jjohn on 2003-05-31T17:34:30

«[US] Administration officials say they have not yet decided whether to produce the first new nuclear weapons in more than decade. But they say that the United States must consider retrofitting its Cold War-era atomic arsenal for the 21st century, and that existing restrictions on research have been "chilling" potential progress in the field of nuclear weaponry.

Scientists, officials say, need freedom to explore new concepts in an era when threats come from terrorists and smaller states rather than a rival superpower fortified with its own intercontinental missiles. »

--International Herald Tribune: US shift on nuclear arms stirs concern

Remember: these baby-nukes ("nukettes" really) aren't weapons of mass destruction -- unless used in quantity. I'm certain other nations, like Iran and North Korea, can easily understand how the US can, at the same time, back out of ICBM treaties and actively research new atomic weapons while also punishing other non-English speaking countries for pursuing their own programs. The UK appears to be stepping up their atomic programs too, but that's OK. To those who call this policy hypocritical, reckless, and ill-advised, I say what do you know?

This story was also discussed on plastic.com. Also, the homeland security level has been reduced to Yellow because I guess The Terrorists don't work weekends.

---

US

pudge on 2003-05-31T20:28:04

The US does not say there is anything wrong with many other nations having weapons of mass destruction, including France, China, and India. And, of course, there's Russia.

To say the US punishes "non-English speaking countries for pursuing their own programs" is simply false.

And it is not just the US, it is all the "nuclear powers" who have, collectively, said that additional nations should not gain nuclear weapons capabilities.

Further, the US does not say it does not have, nor that it will not produce, weapons of mass destruction.

There is nothing remotely hypocritical about this. The policy is not "no countries should have these weapons," but "no additional countries should have these weapons." And it is clearly irrespective of what language the nations speak, or the color of their skin.

Perhaps reckless and ill-advised are appropriate; that's a matter of opinion. But it can only be said to be hypocritical if you misunderstand the policies.

Re:US

hfb on 2003-05-31T21:54:27

If the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in a conflict starts researching and producing mo' better nukes, you can bet the others will follow. Just what a crazed and angry world needs, more nukes.

Re:US

pudge on 2003-05-31T22:19:20

Well, that's beside any point I was making.

That said, I don't see a big problem here, except for perception. These weapons could, theoretically, be significantly better at taking out the military targets with less collateral damage than their conventional counterparts. If the word "nuclear" weren't attached to them, there would be far less concern. That said, perception is important, too. :-)