For the very same reason that the Bush administration felt the United States of America needs more and more and more shiny-new nukes, I imagine, because the old nukes are viewed to be, you know, kind of old, antiquated for the current 21st century situation. For years now, the Russian Armed Forces have made do with repairing and re-repairing old Soviet-era equipment. Now President Medvedev seems to be saying that enough is enough, the old equipment is beyond repair and it's about time the Russian Armed Forces finally starts buying it new.
Well if they are taking the Good man Bush strategy then I agree they are correct.
But if they are leaning toward the pentagon strategy and Russia has always been more miltant influenced government I think they are then they will be bring on the neceassary return of Christ
And although the
Bush administration has so far made little progress in promoting the development of
"mini nukes" that could be used against enemy forces,
the influential Defence Science Board that advises the Pentagon has thrown its weight behind them.
In a leaked report, due to be tabled in the next few months, the board urges the
development of lower-yield weapons that would have more battlefield "credibility" than the more powerful current nuclear bombs.
The rationale of the pro-nuclear supporters is clear: After Sept. 11, America is fighting an unpredictable
enemy that must be attacked and eradicated by any possible means.
"As seen
in Afghanistan, conventional weapons are not always able to destroy underground targets," said the Armed Services Committee, which backed the new nuclear policy.
"The United States may need nuclear earth penetrators (bunker-busters) to destroy underground facilities where rogue nations have stored chemical, biological or nuclear weapons."
Keith Payne, the Pentagon's civilian liaison with the U.S. Strategic Command, which plans how a nuclear war could be fought, has for a decade promoted the idea of usable nukes.
Payne believes the lessons of the
1991 Gulf War included the discovery that Scud missiles might elude attack. In a 1999 paper on the future of American nuclear weapons, he wrote: "If the locations of dispersed mobile launchers cannot be determined with enough precision to permit pinpoint strikes, suspected deployment areas might be subjected to multiple nuclear strikes."
Other pro-nuclear theorists say
a new generation of fightable nukes might have a deterrent effect on the kind of enemies America now faces: guerrilla groups and unpredictable terrorists.
"All we have left is nuclear use and pre-emption, so that something a little bigger, with a little more bite, does not emerge as the next threat against our security and values," says Barry Zellen, publisher of the electronic security bulletin,
SecureFrontiers.com.
"Our willingness to go beyond deterrence to a more pro-active strategy of nuclear use might just end up achieving what we wanted in the beginning: successful deterrence of further aggression and terror against us, now and in the future."
However, experts say, usable nukes would be far from environmentally safe
"What Bush has done is emphasize that there are not only bad weapons out there, but bad people with bad weapons.
"Then, the line becomes blurred, because he's implying that responsible states are entitled to possess and even use the same kinds of weapons.
"In fact, these are all weapons of mass terror, and we should never forget that."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1116-11.htm
AFP/File Russian soldiers guard a checkpoint near the Georgian village of Khurvaleti in 2008. Russian President
it's not me.
)
