Critics of the Obama administration's decision to proceed with the B61-12 nuclear bomb program say it's actually a new kind of weapon disguised as a mere "upgrade kit" and that its production and delivery to U.S. Air Force combat elements is shifting the paradigm from "Nuclear weapons are only a dire, last resort" to "Yeah, we could nuke that target".
The B61-12 gravity bombs will be produced by combining parts of older, already existing nuclear bombs into a new bomb package with new electronic controls.
The tail kit improves the bomb's accuracy to an estimated 30 meters CEP and allows a modest standoff capability, so that the delivery platform (such as the F-35 Stealth Joint Strike Fighter) would be able to deliver the bomb from a somewhat greater distance, relative to the target.
The "Dial-A-Blast" feature allows the mission planners to pre-program the bomb's explosive yield, from a maximum of 50 kilotons, all the way down to just 0.3 kilotons. (The Hiroshima bomb yield was about 15 kilotons.)
"Obama pledged to reduce nuclear arsenal, then came this weapon" Long, investigative-style report examines the B61-12 project's history and implications ---> Wanna see it? Includes photos of this new Bad Boy cradled on a dolley. https://www.revealnews.org/...e-to-reduce-arsenal/
Critics of the Obama administration's decision to proceed with the B61-12 nuclear bomb program say it's actually a new kind of weapon disguised as a mere "upgrade kit" and that its production and delivery to U.S. Air Force combat elements is shifting the paradigm from "Nuclear weapons are only a dire, last resort" to "Yeah, we could nuke that target".
Why do you believe this is something "new"? Why forward the propaganda that it is a "new weapon" when it ACTUALLY IS an upgrade kit and was stated to be so from the very outset when the RFQ to *manufacture them* went out FOUR YEARS AGO.
Do people actually believe that the old B61 is somehow the *only* and *best* nuclear weapon available for such a target? (Nearly 3,000 built since 1963; an estimated 825 remain today....of 825 remaining B61s, roughly 370 are active.)
Please tell us why an nuclear armed ALCM or SLCM wouldn't be a better choice than and old gravity bomb with a steerable TKA.
Could the only real "ire" here be that fictitious, speculative "contamination pattern" in the image that goes to Tehran, (or "Teheran" as it is labeled...)?
Could it be that the so-called "ire" is coming from someone with clear bias and agenda?
Here is a kid with ZERO credentials for knowledge of ANYTHING about nuclear weapons, and especially what is "new" or not. He's a typical "twenty something" writing propaganda bit pieces that foolish people believe, pick up and repost.
What is YOUR agenda rinselberg?
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-09-2015).]
"Critics of the Obama administration's decision say ...".
Not "rinselberg says ..."
I knew right away that it would be a fun little post for me to put together. A catchy lead: Dial-A-Blast. Some eye candy (the fallout map). The "paradigm shift"--I came up with that wording myself. I think I got that idea across very clearly with just a few simple words.
I thought it might generate some interesting Reply To Topic posts--and it has.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-09-2015).]
Here is a kid with ZERO credentials for knowledge of ANYTHING about nuclear weapons, and especially what is "new" or not. He's a typical "twenty something" writing propaganda bit pieces that foolish people believe, pick up and repost.
MORE propaganda bullcrap dumped here courtesy of rinselberg.
OOPS!....NOT SO FAST..
It seems that PRIVATEScott Thomas Beauchamp, aside from having NO CREDENTIALS to be offering any expertise on nuclear weapons also has a LONG history as a serial LIAR
When I stumbled upon this story--I think it was the Scott Beauchamp column on Aljazeera America where I first picked up on this story--it was the technical aspects that drew me in, more than any political considerations or how this weapon is being viewed by critics (or proponents) of nuclear weapons.
Dial-A-Blast. I thought that was a "snappier" lead than Dial-A-Yield, which was what it was called in one of these reports. I could hardly wait to go to town with that for a lead and whip up my Original Post.
It was interesting for me to discover that there was (or will be) a deployed gravity bomb nuclear weapon that can be "dialed" from 50 kilotons yield, all the way down to just 0.3 kilotons yield. That's a range of more than 100x or two orders of magnitude. And if I understand it correctly, it boils down to just a conceptually simple flow valve that controls the exact amount of tritium gas molecules that are injected into the fission process when the bomb is detonated.
"Fascinating", as Star Trek's Dr Spock mused on so many occasions. Or "Elementary, My Dear Watson."
If I were putting this forward as an OpEd, representing my own thinking on this topic, I might very well have taken the time to dig into the backgrounds of the columnists and reporters who authored the material that I listed here as my sources. But I did not think of this as an OpEd. I thought of it as a News report. It is just a report about what certain people are saying about this weapon.
When I try to evaluate the validity (True or False) of a statement that someone has made, I want to take their background into consideration. "Consider the source." Yes. I absolutely subscribe to that. But the source's background or the provenance of a statement does not automatically validate it as True or invalidate it as False. I wasn't even in this mode, because--as I say yet again--I was posting this as News and not My Opinion.
I thought this might draw some interesting Reply To Topic posts, and it has.
A political agenda here on my part? Really? It would be closer to the truth to say that I fantasize about living the life of CNN's Wolf Blitzer, and that after an Original Post of this kind--a catchy lead and some eye candy by the way of that projected radioactive fallout zone map centered on the Fordow underground nuclear site near Teheran--don't forget the eye candy--I go to sleep and dream about making the late night cocktail party circuit in DC or Atlanta and picking up the best looking "cougars".
--> "MORE propaganda bullcrap dumped here courtesy of rinselberg."
quote
PRICELESS..!
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-10-2015).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: It was interesting for me to discover that there was (or will be) a deployed gravity bomb nuclear weapon that can be "dialed" from 50 kilotons yield, all the way down to just 0.3 kilotons yield. That's a range of more than 100x or two orders of magnitude. And if I understand it correctly, it boils down to just a conceptually simple flow valve that controls the exact amount of tritium gas molecules that are injected into the fission process when the bomb is detonated.
Its probably even more interesting to find out that we have had weapons with this capability deployed since the 1960s. Yeah that's right Dial a yield is not a new feature on the b-61 its been there all along. The b61-3 actually goes from .3kt to 170kt.
The actual new features of the mod 11 are increased accuracy and the ability to be carried in the internal bomb bays of the F35 (the latter is the biggest reason for the new mod) It would seem like people writing articles like these would do at least 15 mins of their own research before writing a article. Of course that wouldn't fit their agenda, and their target audience isn't really interested in the truth so...
Its probably even more interesting to find out that we have had weapons with this capability deployed since the 1960s. Yeah that's right Dial a yield is not a new feature on the b-61 its been there all along. The b61-3 actually goes from .3kt to 170kt.
The actual new features of the mod 11 are increased accuracy and the ability to be carried in the internal bomb bays of the F35 (the latter is the biggest reason for the new mod) It would seem like people writing articles like these would do at least 15 mins of their own research before writing a article. Of course that wouldn't fit their agenda, and their target audience isn't really interested in the truth so...
Despite his protestations to the contrary, these are not "News stories". It is impossible not to take note that THREE of the writers that rinselberg posted propaganda from have *serious* credibility and bias issues. NONE of the three have any credentials or expertise in the military weaponry they are discussing. Two of them are well documented, long time, far left propagandists.
Jeremy Bender Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp Russ Wellen
Just what are the odds that *these* three particular people just "happened" to all show up on rinselbergs so-called "News articles" all at the same time?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
If I were putting this forward as an OpEd, representing my own thinking on this topic, I might very well have taken the time to dig into the backgrounds of the columnists and reporters who authored the material that I listed here as my sources. But I did not think of this as an OpEd. I thought of it as a News report. It is just a report about what certain people are saying about this weapon.
He asks us to join him in thinking of these as news reports, when the reality is that they are thinly veiled Opinion / Propaganda pieces filled with inaccuracies, half-truths and outright lies written by individuals with specific political agendas.
It didn't require more than just a couple of minutes digging on each article to expose them and their authors for what they are.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-11-2015).]
I've actually touched one. Played with the dials too. Absolutely immaculate weapon. Well they were before they were dismantled. Glad to see some still exist.
We did it America! We make a big nuke small and a small nuke big.
I am pleased to inform Pennock’s of the unrestricted availability from the Center For Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) of Project Atom: A Competitive Strategies Approach to Defining U.S. Nuclear Strategy and Posture for 2025–2050 (May 2015):
This 160-page report is the product of nine contributors from CSIS and three other “think tanks”.
CSIS’s Clark Murdock, who authored the Executive Summary, said this:
quote
The two primary missions for U.S. nuclear weapons are deterrence and extended deterrence, and the future force should be structured accordingly. In order to execute its Measured Response strategy, the nuclear forces for both deterrence and extended deterrence should have low-yield, accurate, special-effects options that can respond proportionately at the lower end of the nuclear continuum.
I concur that the B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb upgrade will provide an option at the lower end of the nuclear continuum, as recommended by Dr Murdock.
It should be noted that the nine contributors to Project Atom are not in complete agreement on all points. This is evident because the Project Atom report includes separate chapters from Barry Blechman and Russell Rumbaugh of Stimson Center; Elbridge Colby (with Shawn Brimley and Ely Ratner) of Center for a New American Security; and Keith B. Payne and Thomas Scheber of National Institute for Public Policy.
Zachary Keck, who blogs in “The National Interest”, offers his interpretation:
quote
The thinking of the [Project Atom] proposal is that America’s unmatched military power encourages potential adversaries to use nuclear weapons to offset their conventional inferiority. The danger, Murdock argues, is that adversaries would use low-yield nuclear weapons early in a conflict in order to get the United States to “back off.” Should such a scenario come to pass, America might be self-deterred from responding at the nuclear level.
“Since most [current] U.S. nuclear response options are large, ‘dirty,’ and inflict significant collateral damage,” Murdock writes, “the United States might be ‘self-deterred’ and not respond ‘in kind’ to discriminate nuclear attacks.” Even just the possibility of potential adversaries believing this to be true could significantly increase the probability that they will use nuclear weapons in the event of a conflict with the United States.
It is apparent to me (and many others, I would surmise) that a robust adoption of the Project Atom recommendations would move the United States forwards on a path that was previously recommended by the widely-quoted Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, The Nukes We Need: Preserving the American Deterrent, in Foreign Affairs, 4Q 2009.
These observations do not contradict or undermine in even the smallest way the titular lead which I used as a way of opening this topic; to wit:
In my Original Post, I neither promised any intent or offered any pretense of having assessed the backgrounds of any of the critics, or weighing the probity or acumen of any of their criticisms.
Beyond the names of “critics of tactical nuclear weapons” that I attached as authors at the end of my Original Post, are these:
Kingston Reif, the Director of Disarmament and Threat Reduction Policy at the Arms Control Association
Hans M. Kristensen Director, Nuclear Information Project Federation of American Scientists
Within the Project Atom report itself, Barry Blechman’s chapter stands out like a Dissenting Opinion from a Supreme Court justice; he closed with this:
quote
Nuclear weapons do not achieve U.S. policy objectives, dominant conventional forces do. The U.S. interest lies in seeking to minimize the importance accorded to nuclear weapons by narrowing the roles they are perceived to play. U.S. doctrine, policy, forces, and diplomacy should all be configured to support this interest. The posture described in this paper achieves just that, in contrast to postures that imagine uses of nuclear weapons that have never actually been demonstrated. After 70 years of indulging fantasies of what nuclear weapons can do, it is high time to acknowledge that they do very little and adapt U.S. nuclear policy, strategy, and forces to those facts.
I hope the foregoing serves as a Febreze-like cleansing and refreshing of a discussion that has (regrettably) been impacted by the needless interjection of some misleading and ill-conceived polemics.
Collateral damage is a thing of the past, When you size your nuke with Dial-A-Blast.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-13-2015).]
I hope the foregoing serves as a Febreze-like cleansing and refreshing of a discussion that has (regrettably) been impacted by the needless interjection of some misleading and ill-conceived polemics.
Perhaps you are referring to the "misleading and ill-conceived polemics" of the 3 propagandists you posted articles from earlier?
Perhaps you are referring to your own "ill-conceived" expectation that given your long and well documented "muslim fetish" on this forum, that your sudden appearance with this "nuclear news" of yours would skirt skeptical scrutiny of any sort, particularly considering that your "nuclear news" comes suspiciously on the very eve of the United States Congress considering Obama's (also ill-conceived), "nuclear treaty" with the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN.
Perhaps it was the ill-conceived Leftist / Liberal "moral equivalency" argument, this time in regard to nuclear weaponry, and by inference, to The Islamic Republic of Iran that you vainly hoped to avoid "polemics" on, or even any notice of?
To that I can only say: Too Bad!
The "polemics" which you would like everyone to believe are "needless" are in fact, quite appropriate given your prolific muslim apologetic history here.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
You might want to spray that "Febreze" of yours where it really stinks....Straight into the Iran nuclear "treaty" and any unilateral, anti-U.S., nuclear disarmament propaganda.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
I am pleased to inform Pennock’s of the unrestricted availability from the Center For Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) of Project Atom: A Competitive Strategies Approach to Defining U.S. Nuclear Strategy and Posture for 2025–2050 (May 2015):
CSIS’s Clark Murdock, who authored the Executive Summary, said this:
Yes, you are "pleased to inform" anyone foolish enough to swallow anything from former Senator Sam "No Nukes" Nunn and his personal, 2nd Generation nuclear disarmament organization, CSIS, (his first one being NTI, ironically co-chaired by Jane Fonda's hubby, Ted Turner).
The attempt to divert attention away from "No Nukes Nunn" and onto Murdock was also "ill-conceived and needless". The antics of guys like Sam and his NTI / CSIS are well known to people who pay attention to such things.
These fools have been trying to "baby step" the United States into unilateral nuclear disarmament for a long time now. Thankfully, so far, their efforts have been in vain.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-13-2015).]
US Secretary of State John Kerry indirectly conceded that the US would defend Iran's nuclear program from Israeli sabotage on Thursday, in a hearing at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in which he was grilled over the deal reached last Tuesday.
Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) put Kerry on the spot when he asked him and Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz whether the controversial articles in Annex III on page 142 of the 159-page deal would stipulate that the US block Israeli attempts to scupper the Iranian nuclear threat.
The articles in question state that the US, world powers and the EU obligate to "co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage."
Moniz did not reject the possibility but tried to deflect the implication of betrayal of Israeli security interests, saying, “I believe that refers to things like physical security and safeguards. All of our options and those of our allies and friends will remain in place.”
Undeterred, Rubio responded, "I guess that's my point. If Israel conducts an airstrike on a physical facility, does this deal...require us to help Iran protect and respond to that threat?"
The secretary of energy hesitatingly replied by claiming that the clause would not obligate the US to respond to an Israeli airstrike.
Kerry then got involved, saying, "the purpose of that is to be able to have longer-term guarantees as we enter a world in which cyber warfare is increasingly a concern for everybody. If you are going to have a nuclear capacity, you clearly want to be able to make sure that those are adequately protected.”
Responding to Kerry's hint that the clause is meant to defend Iran from "cyber warfare," Rubio asked if the deal obligates the US to defend Iran from an Israeli cyber attack.
"I assure you that we will be coordinating very, very closely with Israel as we do on every aspect of Israel's security," said Kerry, tellingly refusing to directly answer what the deal obligates the US to do in such a scenario.
"That's not how I read this," replied Rubio.
"I don't see any way possible that we will be in conflict with Israel with respect to what we might want to do there, and I think we just have to wait until we get to that point," responded the secretary of state, essentially indicating that America's actions won't be clear until the moment of truth.
If the Obama administration or the next one (or the one after that) decides that there is a need for something to "happen" to any of Iran's nuclear facilities, such as a Stuxnet style cyberattack using a computer virus, I don't see how or why this little old Annex III would stand in anyone's way.
Presidential directive for Covert Action--overrides this agreement. It's not an international treaty. Just an "agreement".
In fact, a scenario where the U.S. would be overtly cooperating with Iran in this area seems like it could very well provide the cover and the access for the U.S. to stage some kind of cyberattack against Iran, or for the U.S. to mislead the Iranians or set up some kind of back channel or Trojan horse with the purpose of allowing Israel to launch some kind of cyberattack on Iran.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-13-2015).]
If the Obama administration or the next one (or the one after that) decides that there is a need for something to "happen" to any of Iran's nuclear facilities, such as a Stuxnet style cyberattack using a computer virus, I don't see how or why this little old Annex III would stand in anyone's way.
Presidential directive for Covert Action--overrides this agreement. It's not an international treaty. Just an "agreement".
In fact, a scenario where the U.S. would be overtly cooperating with Iran in this area seems like it could very well provide the cover and the access for the U.S. to stage some kind of cyberattack against Iran, or for the U.S. to mislead the Iranians or set up some kind of back channel or Trojan horse with the purpose of allowing Israel to launch some kind of cyberattack on Iran.
So with that finally said by you, it is now clear that your actual agenda with all this "Faux Nuke News" really IS only about justifying and *selling* that miserable "IRAN NUCLEAR TREATY / AGREEMENT / DEAL" to everyone.
Sometimes it just takes a little while longer to "smoke you out from under your burka" I guess....
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-13-2015).]
A response to Formula88. He came in here right before you with something about the nuclear deal. I don't know why he put it into this thread instead of some other thread that had "deal" stuff already in it.
Hey, I was just responding to Formula88. He came in here right before you with something about the nuclear deal. I don't know why he put it into this thread instead of some other thread that had "deal" stuff already in it.
Somehow the wide-eyed, blinking innocence act just doesn't seem to work when YOU try to pull it off...
Here's how to do it:
Yeah right, 100% convinced that you had NO IDEA why he would put that post here.
quote
Originally posted by randye:
Perhaps you are referring to your own "ill-conceived" expectation that given your long and well documented "muslim fetish" on this forum, that your sudden appearance with this "nuclear news" of yours would skirt skeptical scrutiny of any sort, particularly considering that your "nuclear news" comes suspiciously on the very eve of the United States Congress considering Obama's (also ill-conceived), "nuclear treaty" with the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN.
and of course NO CLUE why YOU would post this one:
Maybe there's another too-strange-to-be-coincidence involving the Nuclear Deal, rinse-a-muslim--I mean rinselberg--and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Maybe there's another too-strange-to-be-coincidence involving the Nuclear Deal, rinse-a-muslim--I mean rinselberg--and the Environmental Protection Agency.
MORE propaganda bullcrap dumped here courtesy of rinselberg.
OOPS!....NOT SO FAST..
It seems that PRIVATEScott Thomas Beauchamp, aside from having NO CREDENTIALS to be offering any expertise on nuclear weapons also has a LONG history as a serial LIAR
I hate to bash anyone who signed up for the armed forces, but how exactly did this guy leave the military as a private? I mean, holy crap... your first rank is practically given to you the day you leave boot camp. I'm far more likely to believe articles like this if they came from a retired O3-O6 or maybe a former high-ranking enlisted.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I hate to bash anyone who signed up for the armed forces, but how exactly did this guy leave the military as a private? I mean, holy crap... your first rank is practically given to you the day you leave boot camp. I'm far more likely to believe articles like this if they came from a retired O3-O6 or maybe a former high-ranking enlisted.
Private Beauchamp has an "interesting" and not so reliable past:
"I’m active Army & an Iraq vet. I just pulled up “Scott Thomas Beauchamp” on the secure “Army Knowledge Online” website. It lists his current rank as “PV2″. (That data is kept accurate via pay records on that website.)
In his Sep 06 blog post he listed his rank as “[b]Private First Class”. That indicates that without a doubt he was busted at least one rank as part of Article 15 proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and he likely has a strong ax to grind with his chain of command."
Originally posted by randye: . . . It didn't require more than just a couple of minutes digging on each article to expose them and their authors for what they are.
That's exactly right. And..?
I started this thread (the nucleus of a discussion; but I had no certainty that the nucleus would develop into any further discussion) with "Critics are saying ...". Not "I am saying ...".
I included the LINKS for the express purpose of encouraging anyone who was interested enough to go where I had already gone (as far as media reports) and experience their own reactions to these reports in an "up close and personal" and "eyes-directly-on-the-target" kind of scenario.
What might they think about these media reports? What ideas were communicated by these un-vetted writers that could warrant a closer examination: an examination that might have taken any forum member who was up for it to additional online sources.
Private Scott Beauchamp was just one of the writers.
Of the links that I provided with my Original Post, the most extensive writeup was this one, authored by Len Ackland and Burt Hubbard (whoever they are). But no one has said anything further about that report or those authors. Or about this presentation. No one. Not even the illustrious participant from New Port Richey, Florida.
I see these misplaced and ill-mannered histrionics for exactly what they are: the message board equivalent of a baseball player who traps the ball against the ground with his fielder's glove, and then immediately raises his arm triumphantly with the glove and ball held high, to gesture as if it were a fair catch, and an out.
But it's not.
I would like to extend my appreciation, first of all, to all the forum members who Replied in a humorous way. I award the top "prize" in the humor category to MidEngineManiac, for his very apt "one liner". I really didn't see that one coming.
I especially appreciate the thoughtful and informed Reply from gtjoe.
Those are the kind of Replies that kept this topic "breathing" in the back of my mind, as days passed after my Original Post: otherwise, I might not have enriched my brief travail on this earthly sphere by finding my way to the Project Atom report from the Center for Strategic & International Studies. (For more on the Project Atom report, please review my previous post in this discussion; the one that came just before this one.)
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-16-2015).]
Private Scott Beauchamp was just one of the writers.
Of the links that I provided with my Original Post, the most extensive writeup was this one, authored by Len Ackland and Burt Hubbard (whoever they are). But no one has said anything further about that report or those authors. Or about this presentation. No one. Not even the illustrious participant from New Port Richey, Florida.
The "and" is that almost EVERY source you cite is a Far Left , unilateral nuclear disarmament propagandist, "AND" you hoped to some how disguise that in the very same manner they do, with the same specious "studies" that have been used for years now by faux official sounding, non-governmental organizations, attempting to "baby walk" the United States and it's allies into gradual degradation and eventual UNILATERAL nuclear disarmament.
The "and" is that you get very tedious to deal with. You whine because nobody deigned to discuss another piece of your propaganda: this presentation.
Ok, Fine. Lets do just like we did with the OTHER THREE PROPAGANDISTS that I exposed. Lets start with the AUTHOR of that one , shall we?
Hans M. Kristensen (born April 7, 1961) is director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists. He writes about nuclear weapons policy there; he is coauthor of the Nuclear Notebook column in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and the World Nuclear Forces appendix in Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's annual SIPRI Yearbook His work especially relies on using the Freedom of Information Act to compel U.S. government agencies to release documents. He maintains an on-line overview of the number of nuclear weapons in the world, and writes frequently on the FAS Strategic Security Blog.
He is critical of the development and deployment of nuclear weaponry by the US, the UK, and France……(curiously, JUST those countries)
So Hans is a blogger and writer at a NGO dedicated to nuclear disarmament and he plies his "craft" principally by pestering the government with FOIA requests...Wonderful "credentials", especially considering that Hans doesn't even possess a college degree. His own Wiki page states that he only passed exams of the Danish equivalent of High School. Oddly, or perhaps appropriately, none of his bios anywhere seem to disclose Hans' educational or technical credentials...
You expect people to give blind credibility to a slide presentation on nuclear weapons made by a blogger with a high school education, posturing to give "national security advice"?...Seriously?
So then, WHAT is the "FAS", (also entitled on that same document and that Hans is a "Director" at)?
FAS was originally founded as the Federation of Atomic Scientists on November 30, 1945, by a group of scientists and engineers within the Associations of Manhattan Project Scientists, Oak Ridge Scientists, and Los Alamos Scientists. Its early mission was to support the McMahon Act of 1946, educate the public, press, politicians, and policy-makers, and promote international transparency and nuclear disarmament. On January 6, 1946, FAS changed its name to the Federation of American Scientists, but its purpose remained the same.
WHO or WHAT is the "The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation"?, (also mentioned on that same document)
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation was founded in 1982, and is composed of individuals and organizations worldwide who support worldwide efforts to abolish nuclear weapons.
Certainly not in itself an ignoble thing, however once again the *primary* efforts are always directed only at the UNITED STATES.
Shall we continue on with the rest of your cast of characters???
AND, shall we go back over the question you so obviously IGNORED? The question of how this "nuke news" topic of your just "coincidentally" appeared, along with: https://www.fiero.nl/forum/F...6/HTML/113048-2.html
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
Senator Al Franken (D) from Minnesota has decided to support the President's nuclear agreement with Iran.
You really are a tedious one "rinse-a-muslim" Keep tapping those slow bouncing "grounders". Your batting average is pathetic and you are an easy "tag out" at first.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-16-2015).]
You really are a tedious one "rinse-a-muslim". Keep tapping those slow bouncing "grounders". Your batting average is pathetic and you are an easy "tag out" at first.
That post is a breath of fresh air, compared to much else that has been emanating of late from the fabled principality of New Port Richey, Florida.
I said this:
quote
. . . otherwise, I might not have enriched my brief travail on this earthly sphere by finding my way to the Project Atom report from the Center for Strategic & International Studies. (For more on the Project Atom report, please review my previous post in this discussion; the one that came just before this one.)
I also said this:
quote
I concur that the B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb upgrade will provide an option at the lower end of the nuclear continuum, as recommended by [Project Atom contributor] Dr Murdock.
The Totally O/T section of Pennock's Fiero Forum is not a top tier professional journal or publishing house. No one is providing me with a salary or stipend or any other material benefits in exchange for my "efforts" here. I couldn't care less if my online forum or message board posts are literally littered with links (http links) and linkages to left-leaning or solidly leftist authors and sources.
I do care about the thoughts and ideas that I present as my take-aways from my free-ranging perusals of various online media venues and other online sources (and cable TV): the take-aways that are the product of these "perusals", as mediated by the mind and mindset that is "rinselberg".
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-17-2015).]
Not an issue with me.
