House Panel Boosts Bush Plan to Build New Nuclear Warheads
I'll leave it to one of my comrades-in-arms -- and it probably shows that I'm a hypocrite for falling prey to the militarization of the English language by using that particular phrase in this context, but I'm still not going to change a word of this sentence -- to contextualize the following article. This is what said comrade wrote on the Coalition to Demilitarize listserve, followed by the article:
Ugh!
And Kimball's comments point toward our most serious problem of all. Voices like his are taken by the press (and population at large?) as the most rational and possible alternatives to new nukes and unbridled militarism. Greg Mello calls this peer review for the weapons complex.
The gist of the article - that the critics believe the massive number of nuclear weapons we now have is suitable - seriously depresses me. Who said thousands of nukes are fine? This discourse has always been dysfunctional, but it's getting ridiculous. Where are the voices of real opposition?
House panel boosts Bush plan to build new nuclear warheads
Many arms control experts say idea is huge waste of money
James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, May 20, 2006
A congressional committee took major steps this week toward financing the Bush administration's controversial program to build new generations of nuclear warheads, roughly doubling the budget for the design of the new weapons while reducing the money for maintaining the old stockpile.
The House Energy and Water Subcommittee passed on Wednesday a budget that increases funding for what is known as the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, or RRW, from the roughly $25 million the White House requested to $52.7 million.
That is a relatively modest amount of money for a program that could end up costing more than $100 billion over the next several decades. The committee, however, took other steps that suggest a firm transition toward the new program is commencing even though the debate over the need for the warheads remains unresolved.
Many arms controls experts have complained that the new RRW program is unnecessary because the existing stockpile is expected to remain in working condition for decades, making the new warheads a huge waste of money.
"They are making an error in shifting resources from a well-proven program of maintaining the stockpile to something that is not proven," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, which favors arms reductions. "I think this is premature and will come back to haunt them."