unlike tea. (Blessed Bee the LRPeeDee)

I recall hearing (as in 'audio') lumped into the $Trillions For Security budget, a little phrase re ~ "developing new, improved 'tactical nukes'".

Does anyone else recall that little insertion? (Yeah, will try Google for the hallowe'end links - but I do believe my ears were functioning OK and indeed passed this FACTOID into at least cache storage..)

Now leaving aside for this thread (I guess) - the dubious Question of whether pasting-on the sobriquet Tactical- [???] cancels out the FACT of just having USED a NUKE - Period:

My flag went up as: Stage 1A of The Conditioning Process, Take-2002:
Get the message out early.. get folks accustomed to the use of er 'little-guys'... (Sorta the Reddy Kilowatt redux? of that famous slogan: "With nuc. reactors why - electricity will soon be Too Cheap to Bother Metering!" Anyone recall Those days? And Slogans. And the purpose of Slogans.)

I see this as begging the Question of *Ever* using nukes *except* in retaliation ie NO FIRST STRIKE *ever* from the USA. Remember? That was *supposed* to be the US-Rulez Imposed on Self, and *proclaimed* during the [ongoing as we speak] M.A.D. Manifesto. Yes, this principle was re Strategic- ie the MADDEST of the MAD devices. BUT..

I'd assert that - we have always remained Officially-Fuzzy re any *legitimate excuse* for use of these so-called Tactical- devices. And in perfect Murican syndrome of, "if it's awkward to talk about, flush-it-down the toilet" - *never* was anything remotely-like public discussion of such usage, ever encouraged.

(Well of course too - when was OUR last plebiscite on the size of the US arsenal and.. *asking* what millions of Muricans actually *think* should be the restrictions on its use? I've plumb forgotten that last one. I can't even remember ONE! Is that Alzheimers or ..?)

Clearly this Admin is currently planning textbook Max-Force operations in any next. Unless I've missed it cold: I have seen no signs of any slightest deviation from (Our) Might Makes (any action we take next) Right. Did I miss something, some secret conference wherein we actually *asked another country* to critique our Plans? (Er something ~ like the famous Advise & Consent clause ??)

So, in brief: I find the above 'inserted budget item' to signify the *apparent course* anticipated by the Selected Government of the US.. "progressively..." next, and >as bad results come in< with the Right which our next Might might create.

I deem that: TRULY FRIGHTENING a development in THIS Admin's ""thought-process"" (Especially given the personnel). The former Texas Gov's clear opinion that - ALL those Texas-executed folk were ALWAYS guilty; never no-mind about them Librul DNA test thingies and them Other States' experience with ummm Errors n'stuff. ie what we have here 6/4/02 is: a Pres-sElect who is *Certain* he is Right about such matters. We have also: a Pres-sElect who is seen not to be the brightest LED in the backlight.

Am I the only one (here) who finds this factoid ominous? What say the Commie-Pinko Subversives AND the Flag-encased Patriots on:

Our Nuclear Future ???
as-of this almost 58th anniversary of the D-Day Landings, in the (last-Honourable?) War fought in.. the Warfare Century - which we have just barely sqeaked-through.



Ashton

Who might be able to see the mushroom-base begin forming over SF, all in time to: go ahead and finish that putt for Eagle - before.. the blast-wave hits. Unless I was looking at the flash, of course. 1100'/sec, 50ish miles - yep, physics will work right through to the End.

Assuming that what you recall (from actual presence in our military service, perhaps?) - was ~ the rationale:

Do I notice sufficient vagary in some of those phrases such that, say,
massed armour might be retranslated for 2002 to mean er.. significant threat to National Sovereignty (or any other sufficiently fluid phrase) ??

And too - the need for New ones might well be: for their mass customized production - say, for the methodical rubbleizing of every cave we happen to find in the next 'hostile harbour of Bad People' ? plus a rather confidential list of other imagined 'purposes'. 'Cause that's what I infer from this brief leak of intentions. (After all - we wouldn't *fund* something we have No Intention of Ever Using, now would we?)


Ashton
like watching a building collapse in slo-mo .... ... .. .

You are absolutely correct. Never went *near* a golf course... subsequent to a childhood experience of..

caddying, thankyouverymuch.














Thus I hope.. my little *overall* scenario is similarly improbable - were I ever to get close enough to a green, to ask the question of someone foolish enough to pair with me:

What's a putter ???



:-\ufffd

And I'd have to locate some ancient notes to give you chapter and verse about why.. such a one is unlikely to fit into a 105 mm howitzer round - nor is it a suitable concept for any near-ground burst (like an er 'demolition package' to be toted somewhere). Near-ground == more and more hot detritus. (Let's not further confuse above also with - the scenario to maximize EMP over a large area)

As to 'short half-life' - would that you could just pick the left-over isotopes from your ebay shopping list.. Yes you could sorta bend the mix to a degree, but the essence of the n bomb was to maximize the radiation flash and minimize the blast-wave. These max/mins aren't as different from 'mean' as was hyped. After all - Consumer Reports isn't going to vet the truth in advertising... But yes: less efficient for having less heavy-tamper yada yada

My point is still: this is early conditioning for acceptance of of Just a Little Nuke... if we get ourselves into more trouble than we projected: via next unilateral-decisions in *Our* War on Evil. As propaganda.. this is the evident aim.

Do citizens imagine that: the 'intended role' for small weapons was ever - spelled out with any great clarity? (or that it ever Would be?) And especially now: a postulated future 'need' ??? while our overall strategy for dealing with (others) "Evilness" is being hatched by

This. Bunch. ???



rest case. It's called: psych conditioning.

Ashton

Main page unavailable (link from that one)
"We regret any inconvenience"..

Probably just as well..

1 Ton-TNT at 75# weight in 1961, though the test version was ~ 20 Tons. Imagine what 40 years' development can produce next.




Ashton