'grave' being the operative word...........

It's all about the money and the way the corporations build up a parasitic relationship with the host, US taxpayers. The government corruption has hit new heights during the Bush years, but that is going to end someday.

Let's hope this insanity of waste and destruction approaches its limit as it becomes increasingly absurd and obviously corrupt.

People are fed up.

The Bush Administration has energized and empowered the nuclear weapons and nuclear power industry to the extent that they have tons of money to produce plants and products, and influence politicians, consumers and voters. Such momentum will be difficult to curb.

Not stated in the article is the Bush Administration's announced intended abrogation of a number of international treaties, the most important being the Comprehensive (nuclear) Test-Ban Treaty that took over 40 years of hard work by the international community to even get the US to come to the table. The CTBT was signed by Clinton, but has never been ratified by Congress (because of the nuclear-weapons states New Mexico, California, Washington, Kentucky etc).

Lets face it. The US has a love affair with nukes. It gives them a superiority complex, similar to that of handing a gun to a guy with a small dick.

The cost? The cost? Goddamn the cost! Re-watch Threads or The Day After and money loses much of its meaning. So stupid, so absurd. The one sure way we can wipe ourselves out ...even global warming gives us some kind of fighting chance!

To get a more comprehensive understanding of what is taking place here take a few minutes and read this report.
http://tinyurl.com/mrg4m

We need nuclear weapons for the same reason India does; Bal Thackeray, the head of a militant Hindu party said (after India tested a bomb); "We have to prove that we are not eunuchs."

nuclear weapons are absent of any good whatsoever.

I'm against weapons of mass destruction or death...and I don't care who it is that has them. We need to ban such weapons.

I think if we converted the weapons grade material into power (the only way I support nuclear energy is if it destroys weapons grade material) the economic impact would make it difficult for other contries that have weapons (like Pakistan, India, Russia, China) to not do the same. Let's bang our weapons back into plowshares (so to speak) and end our insanity of nuclear weapons.

I've heard it said that nuclear weapons are man's reaction to seeing a horse with an erection.

The story goes that males, noting they were rather inferior in this department and forever destined to be so, set about gaining superiority in another area.

The rationale seems to be that a horse can't blow up the planet so man therefore is superior despite his physical 'shortcomings'.

Seems man's intelligence has some serious 'shortcomings' also!

www.dangerouscreation.com

Bush's plan to build up nuclear weapons has been on the books for years so it's no surprise that this executive branch that has not one grain of human decency left would consider building up our arsenal. Try writing your congressman, and good luck. Thanks to nut head, the race is on again.

The obscene price tag for this planned new generation of nuclear weaponry is reason enough to reject plan outright. What magnifies the danger ten fold more is George Bush's radical redesign of US nuclear nonproliferation policy. An excellent essay on this frightening development is in the January 2008 issue of Harper's, authored by Jonathan Schell.

Schell describes four phases of American strategic thinking regarding the justification for building an arsenal of nuclear bombs.

At first in 1939 when the Manhattan Project began, the sole rationale was to get to the secret of atomic fission first, before Adolf Hitler did. Nazi Germany presented a genuine existential threat to American democracy, and German scientists were near technological breakthrough on the a-bomb much as they were in fields like rocketry, jet engine aircraft, and long range bombers capable of reaching the western hemisphere. Better to have a nuke and not need it than to need a nuke and not have one.

When Germany was knocked out of WWII, the finishing touches went on the devices developed at Los Alamos so that they could be used against Japan (a country with no nuclear program at all) to bring on unconditional surrender. The monstrous carnage of Hiroshima and Nagasaki worked. For a very short period of time, the US held a nuclear monopoly.

For the next half century, having the bomb and refining the bomb and building more and more bombs was justified under the Cold War doctrine of deterrence. The threat of cataclysmic, mutually-assured destruction was what kept the peace, always on hair trigger alert, between the Soviet bloc and the west. International proliferation was restrained under the nuclear nonproliferation pact.

Suddenly, the Cold War ended, down came the wall, and here sat the United States with over 10,000 operational nuclear warheads and a fantastically expensive, elaborate triad delivery system, but no adversary left to deter. During the 1990's some modest, piecemeal steps were made to secure the Soviet Union's loose nukes, and reduce the size of the American arsenal, largely through attrition. While it was a relief to no longer have to think obsessively about the unthinkable, by the same token, nobody during the Clinton years did much soul searching either about why we shouldn't pursue nuclear disarmament to the point of abolition.

Then came George Bush and 9/11. The neo-cons roll out the doctrine of preventive war as their strategic center piece to replace the treaty approach to nonproliferation.

Henceforth, wannabe nuclear nation states that might want to get the bomb for their own purposes (or to share clandestinely with a terrorist group) would be subject to regime change. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 is Exhibit A for that new nuclear strategic doctrine in action.

For the world's most badass super power to propose upgrading its own gigantic arsenal
while simultaneously threatening to invade any non-nuclear state that might try to build its own a-bomb is more than just white man's hubris run amok.

Much like Iran and North Korea instantly reacted negatively to being placed on the Axis of Evil, the Bush/Cheney doctrine dramatically escalates the real world risk of a nuclear strike taking place upon American soil - a sneak attack clandestinely facilitated by the intelligence service of some hostile, jittery nation state, the big boom likely disguised to look like an act of stateless terrorism, or else perhaps the handiwork of some other government.

It's not just the money or the immorality. It is also the reckless stupidity of this new nuclear strategic doctrine, conjurred up by right wing think tanks in dire need of adult supervision, that Americans should deplore.

Bill from Saginaw

Frida, Henry Kissinger is McCain's foreign policy advisor. Henry Kissinger is not against the spread of nuclear weapons. And, if he were, McCain would never have said that. Henry is a chief player. Remember, they wanted to name him the head of the 9/11 Commission (The Warren Commission of the New Century)....

There will be more weapons systems until the M/I/I complex has driven us into bankrupcy or until we succeed in destroying each other, whichever comes first.

Grave Error?

Not if you see this from the perspective of those who call the shots.

- Lots of money for the pals who head the companies that manufacture them - lots of money borrowed on the tab of kids!

- Less money to waste on HippieCommieLiberal crap like hospitals and schools. Too much education can make you liberal, y'know!

- In case the CommieFaggotLiberals and all their education are right about global warming, having enough nukes to kill all life on earth 44 times over would make a nukular winter that would shock and awe the bejeezus out of the so-called Environment, sure couldn't hurt.

Error, you say! Havin' a hard time seein' through that edjamicated liberalism, are ya?

David Grayling "I've heard it said that nuclear weapons are man's reaction to seeing a horse with an erection."

If that is true, Bu$h the inferior's party must have seen whales with woodies.

They even plan to build a star wars defense condom.

To play a bit of the devil's advocate here...

If one is going to keep a nuke arsenal one has to plan for their upkeep and - yes - their eventual replacement. The cores may last a century or longer, but the conventional explosives, the bits of the atom bomb that turns the thing into a thermonuke and the bomb's electronics will not.

Every weapon system developed has been used, including nukes. An outright ban is a nice idea, but will not happen. Even the most progressive nuke state is not likely to give them up once built. How many of you remember that during the 1920s and 30s the western powers banned ships of a certain tonnage. All of those treaties were violated. Each state built what they could get away with and/or afford, even tho the battleship was an obsolete weapon; the USA, Germany and Japan built them and exceeded the tonnage allowed by the treaties they signed. AFAIK Canada was the only nation that scrapped its nuke program, and even today we could build a functional nuke within six months if we felt that we needed them. By the way, the Empire of Japan did have a program to build an atom bomb, some historians claim that in 1945 they too tested one of them in what is today North Korea.

That being said, yah, we use them we're all fucked. Any nation that faces the defeat of say Hitler's Germany or Hussain's Iraq would like to have such a weapon in order to emulate the bank robber who straps a bomb to his chest and says if I'm going out so are all of you.

Species have come and species have gone. Man will be the only species to destroy itself (and probably most of the other species as well).

What a fantastic achievement! Yeah for the naked ape.

www.dangerouscreation.com

Did y'all know that if Albuquerque, New Mexico, seceded from the US, it would be the third largest nuclear arms power on the planet?

"The DOE's push to surge nuclear weapons runs contrary to the positions taken by Henry Kissinger, secretary of state under President Nixon; George Shultz, secretary of state under President Reagan; William Perry, President Clinton's secretary of defense; and Sam Nunn, the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee."

These are the Trilateral Commission SOB's wanting a nuclear war and WW III. Shultz is the neocon behind Bush foreign policy for crying out loud. Bush appointed Kissinger to run the 9/11 commission.

"This group and dozens of other former foreign policy officials are now championing "the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons" as a "bold initiative consistent with America's moral heritage.""

Translation: "the goal of a world free of 90% of it's citizens" as a "bold initiative consistent with our New World Order and World Government agenda which is best achieved with the nuclear option"

could be the answer to global warming, 1 nuclear winter should do it.

what do they care, if Bush goes for M.A.D. the Christians will sit in the hand of GOD, the radiacal Islamic Terrorists will be deflowering 27 virgins and I will be a carbon footprint.

Doom n Gloom, I read that report, thanks, wow.

The defense contractors "investments' in Diebold, the spooks involved with writing the code. Just blatant scary.

The rest of them have nukes to deter the USA.

You can afford the nuclear weapons , but have given up on Carbon Capture and Storage as too hard. A few billion for CCS is too much, but a few hundred billion for nuclear weapons isn't enough. Therefore are you going to solve global warming by nuclear death?

These people have the audacity to complain because Iran wants a few weapons to protect itself????? How do they propose to limit nuclear weapons behaving like this???? They honestly imagine someone else isn't going to want them???? You would have thought any intelligent person would have learned by now (not including Bush) that such sophisticated weapons are useless against a army made up of fanatic's, insurgents and terrorist's! In short they are useless in a conventional war. Otherwise why are we in the quagmire we are in Iraq and Afghanistan both???? Of coarse, we could make them glow in the dark! But, what good is that going to do? When you have lost the hearts and minds of the people you are trying to conquer! What good is a country void of human life and uninhabitable going to do us???? No one in the world is going to let us nuke them and get away with it! We are going to become this centuries 'fascist threat'! The rogue nation that needs to be taken out. This Administration needs a good dose of common sense!

Taking "role in civil society" those tortured, imprisoned, persecuted in resistance to these instruments of destruction, from the man that refuses to dump and bury the waste, the brilliant scientist that will go blind rather than work for the war maker, and the child that will not allow his gifts to be used to kill the Prophet "no matter how big the offer", these are the people who are saving our future. "Adjusting for inflation"?

Do we need an updated Nuclear Posture Review by "secretary of defense", do we need another Icon when so many being shocked, killed, locked up, cast out, unrecognized and tortured resisting this destruction, do we need the last "No Nukes CD with all the stars" (I guarantee most of these folks did not get it) and were probably not on the "in" list but God almighty they were on the "enlist"..."the Jesus that did join the military" the enlisted SHOCK because they didn't deal the "out" deal either and this is what they got.

Complex Deconstruction. Burn victims, bomb victims, gas victims,

Why is this important? SHOCK! You tell me and your "next president to truly relegate nuclear weapons to dim memories" can tell mine, the victims of this nuclear nightmare, how you did it.
Margaret Bryant-Gainer peace :)