Bush's New Nuclear Push
Alt
Why does the U.S. need new nukes? The Administration argues that the current arsenal consists largely of mammoth city blasters that can't burrow underground where U.S. officials believe nations such as Iran and North Korea are assembling weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, Pentagon officials say, this arsenal is no longer an effective deterrent. Washington's enemies, they say, calculate that the U.S. won't use its existing nuclear weapons because of the widespread carnage they would cause.
But the new plans have their own detractors, including nuclear scientist and Pentagon adviser Sidney Drell, who says even a tiny 1-kiloton weapon exploding 50 ft. deep in rock would spew radioactivity across a wide swath of the planet. Arms-control advocates worry that possessing smaller and more precise nuclear weapons would scuttle efforts to stop worldwide proliferation. Said Senator Dianne Feinstein last week: "This Administration seems to be moving toward a military posture in which nuclear weapons are considered just like other weapons."
Most Popular »
- Why Obama's Afghan War is Different
- How Medicated Was Michael Jackson?
- Why Sarah Palin Quit as Governor
- Behind North Korea's Missile Launch
- Searching for Palin's 'Hot Photos'
- When Benedict Meets Barack
- Afterbirth: It's What's For Dinner
- What Michael Jackson Did on His Last Day
- TIME's Summer Reading List
- Asian Film Fireworks for the Fourth
- Why Obama's Afghan War is Different
- Afterbirth: It's What's For Dinner
- How Medicated Was Michael Jackson?
- When Benedict Meets Barack
- Why Marriage Matters
- Asian Film Fireworks for the Fourth
- How to Moonwalk like Michael
- What Michael Jackson Did on His Last Day
- Behind North Korea's Missile Launch
- Michael Jackson: The Death of Peter Pan







RSS