Warhead Reduction
No, there isn't a reduction of those little sour candies that were oh so popular back in the nineties. Yep, we're talking about the reduction of the big boys; the nuclear arsenal of the United States. Bush announced today, in the wake of news that Iran hasn't been pursing weapons grade uranium since 2003, that the U.S. will be reducing it's nuclear stockpile to less than a quarter of what it was at the end of the Cold War. A spending bill was also rejected that would have allowed for the development of a newer, more reliable warhead using existing weapons. While in theory no new weapons would be created (just overhauling the existing stockpile), it would send the wrong message to nations such as Iran and North Korea that we are actively (and apparently successfully) attempting to denuclearize.*
*I just reread this post, that last line was rather ambiguous (to me at least.) I was referring to our attempts to denuclearize North Korea and Iran, not us. - updated Dec. 30, 2007
1 Comments:
The real question is why are we reducing them? Is it because of cost? It surely isn't to send a message to Iran or N. Korea. Bush would believe this shows weakness. It must be a cost cutting measure.
Post a Comment
<< Home