So, the U.S. is going to add tailfins to some nukes.
What’s absolutely astounding about this? In the same article detailing an Obama administration plan to reduce deployed nukes to 1100 from 1550, we find this:
Especially when you combine it with F35 with stealth characteristics, that expands the targets you can hold at risk from Europe, because by placing the explosion closer to the target you can choose a lower explosive yield. That is very important as there is less radioactive fallout. For many people this is a great concern because it means making nuclear weapons more ‘usable’.
That’s right; they’re upset that they are lowering the yield. This is the pacifist fundamentalist syndrome laid bare: the threat of more casualties is better than less actual casualties because it makes war worse–in theory making peace more desirable.
Same thing with dr0nz. They hate that it might actually make it less terrible. It’s the moral equivalent of refusing to eat synthetic meat because its still “meat” and thereby keeping the slaughter of animals commercially viable.
And here’s the attempt at drawing the headshake:
Joseph Cirincione, the president of the Ploughshares Fund, an arms control pressure group, said the B61 modernisation plans were largely driven by domestic political considerations but risked sending mixed messages to Russia at a time when Washington and Moscow needed to strike a deal.
You know, politicians! Both sides do it!
So, it’s bad a democratically elected president is responding to domestic political considerations? I’ll remember that the next time I read an article about senators ignoring the 90% who support background checks. Which is it?!