Thermonuclear Price Supports

A recent statement by Linton Brooks, who speaks for the National Nuclear Security Administration on nuclear weapons issues... On March 4, Brooks told the East Tennessee Economic Council in the city of Oak Ridge (home to a major nuclear weapons complex),"The United States will, for the foreseeable future, need to retain both nuclear forces and the capabilities to sustain and modernize those forces,,, The end of the Cold War did not end the importance of nuclear weapons...I do not see any chance of the political conditions for abolition arising in my lifetime, nor do I think abolition could be verified if it were negotiated..."

[The locals were just as pleased as punch, knowing their property values would stay high- until everything else was turned to cinders anyway]

... These remarks were the first by a top government official publicly acknowledging US abandonment of a goal that could make the difference in whether life on this troubled planet will continue. The remarks revealed a serious departure from commitments by previous US administrations to their negotiating partners and the international community at large.

...These weapons are capable of what George Kennan has called "levels of such grotesque dimensions as to defy rational understanding." The US activities of updating nuclear weapons, threatening their use, and spreading nuclear technologies greatly increase the likelihood that such weapons will be used.

This militant posture is part of the administration’s response to the tragedy of 9/11. Had that been an attack with one 20 megaton bomb exploding on the surface of Columbus Circle in New York, it would have produced a hole where twenty city blocks had been, a hole deep enough to hide a 20 story building.

All brick and wood frame houses within 7.7 miles would be completely destroyed. The blast waves would carry through the entire underground subway system. Up to fifteen miles from ground zero flying debris, propelled by displacement effects would cause more casualties. 200,000 separate fires would be ignited producing a firestorm with temperatures up to 1,500 degrees F. and wind velocities to 150 MPH.

The fabric of water supplies, food and fuel for transportation, medical services, and electric power would be destroyed. And radiation damages that destroy and deform living things would continue for 240,000 years. Such bombs, and others still larger and more destructive, are contained in the warheads of missiles, many of them capable of delivering multiple warheads from a single launch.

...Anyone who doubts that this current administration is capable of accident or miscalculation, must clearly not have been have not been paying attention. And to play these games unaware of the risks they are creating, can only be described as a form of madness.

Whom the gods would destroy, they first allow to see "Star Wars".

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is asking Congress for hundreds of millions of dollars to test weapons in space, marking the biggest step toward creating a space battlefield since President Reagan's long-defunct ''star wars" project during the Cold War, according to federal budget documents.

The Defense Department's budget proposal for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 includes money for a variety of tests on offensive and defensive weapons, including a missile launched at a small satellite in orbit, testing a small space vehicle that could disperse weapons while traveling at 20 times the speed of sound, and determining whether high-powered ground-based lasers can effectively destroy enemy satellites.

The military says that its aerospace technology, which has advanced exponentially during the last two decades, is worth the nine-figure investment because it will have civilian applications as well... Exactly which civilians are we talking about?

...The descriptions included in the budget request mark only what is publicly known about the military's space warfare plans. Specialists believe the classified portion of the $439 billion budget, blacked out for national security reasons, almost certainly includes other space-related programs.

Rick Lehner, an agency spokesman, said there are no plans to base weapons in space, noting that out of $48 billion planned for missile defense over the next five years, just $570 million will fund space-related activities. Most of the money will doubtless be directly deposited in Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grummon, and General Dynamics accounts with no need for messy hardware.

...Under President Bush, the White House has emphasized what's known as ''space dominance" -- the notion that the United States must command space to defend the nation, a strategy that gained traction under Reagan. The military already has reconnaissance and communications satellites, but the Pentagon says weapons systems in space can protect commercial satellites as well.

Anti-corporate terra'ist groups like Greenpeace are known for their hunter-killer antisatellite weapons. Still, it must strike some as odd how our satellite protection involves weapons to knock down satellites.

...In 2004, the Air Force published a paper outlining a long-term vision for space weapons, including an air-launched antisatellite missile, a ground-based laser aimed at low-earth orbit satellites, and a ''hypervelocity" weapon that could strike targets from space...

In another program, called Advanced Weapons Technology, the Air Force wants to spend $51 million for a series of space-oriented experiments, according to budget documents. A project description says the Air Force would test a variety of powerful laser beams ''for applications including antisatellite weapons."

A Missile Defense Agency project set to begin in 2008, the Space-Based Interceptor Test Bed, would launch up to five satellites capable of shooting down missiles, according to budget documents.

''A space layer helps protect the United States and our allies against asymmetric threats designed to exploit coverage and engagement gaps in our terrestrial defenses," the agency says in its budget proposal, referring to the interceptor test. ''We believe that a mix of terrestrial and space-basing offers the most effective global defense against ballistic missiles..."

Skynet agrees.