Slashdot Mirror
Labs Compete to Build New Nuclear Bomb
An anonymous reader writes "Yahoo! News is reporting that two labs are currently competing to design the first new nuclear bomb in twenty years. The new bomb was approved as a part of the 2006 defense spending bill. From the article: 'Proponents of the project say the U.S. would lose its so-called "strategic deterrent" unless it replaces its aging arsenal of about 6,000 bombs, which will become potentially unreliable within 15 years. A new, more reliable weapon, they say, would help the nation reduce its stockpile.'"
Yeah, getting little things like "facts" wrong tends to be a common theme amongst those who take pleasure in blaming the US for everything.
"Operation Ajax, 1953. It's not exactly a secret or anything, however they don't teach it in school and I don't think the movie is out yet. This is one of the cornerstones of why some islamists have issues with the USA."
I guess both you and "some islamists" missed this bit: The UK came up with the plan and pursued it, the US agreed to assist. So why, pray tell, is the US the country being blamed?
Ofcourse, the revisionist historians who see this as some blatant power-grab, or the removal of a "democratic" regime for political purposes, all fail to acknowledge the realities of that time period. 1953. The early stages of the cold war. The US, as well as many other nations, had just finished fighting communist forces in Korea, spending billions of dollars, and losing thousands of soldiers. Back then Global Communism under a totalitarian USSR was much more threatening and terrifying than the prospect of a Global Islamist Caliphate is today. These revisionist stories make it seem as if Eisenhower just woke up one morening and said "Hey, you know what would be fun? If we started a revolution in Iran!", when in fact it was seen as a neccesary step in the fight for the survival of our very way of life. A revolution in an Iran increasingly leaning towards communism (and sharing a border with the USSR) was a logical way to avoid more intense warfare later on. And, as history shows, NATO nations won the Cold War without having to fight much. Was the revolution in Iran neccesary? Maybe, maybe not. Making such claims today though is rather like sitting back and saying that the D-day invasion should have never taken place. It's one part of a larger war, and a war that our side won.
"Iran is making no such threat. We are the ones talking of them building nukes in five years, not them."
Pull your head out of the sand please, it's hard to hear or see anything while your eyes and ears are covered.
As for the rest of your nonsense, the time for diplomacy in Iraq came and passed in the 1990's. Sadam survived one war, years of inspections and negotiations, followed by years of sanctions. Negotiating any more at that point was sheer lunacy. The UN resolutions pre-2003-invasion, as well as the US demands, were an ultimatum, NOT a diplomatic solution. They were quite clear on that. "Sadam WILL do the following, or we'll come in and finish the job we started in 1991".
And you can bet your ass PNAC's had it's crosshairs on Iran for a while. Right now we're at the same stage with Iran that we were with Germany in 1938. Democrats are waiving their flags yelling "We have peace in our time", while the Republicans grit their teeth and prepare for the worst. I'm not advocating an immediate invasion, but if we follow YOUR sage advice, we'll have another massive war on our hands within the decade. We'll also have a smoking crater where Israel used to be, and people like you feining shock. "How could we EVER have seen it coming??". Luckily, the US seems to be capable of electing intelligent individuals, instead of the "intelectuals" much preferd by other countries.