Skip to comments.
Bush pushes for next generation of nukes
USA Today ^
| 7/6/2003
| Tom Squitieri
Posted on 07/06/2003 9:03:59 PM PDT by squidly
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:40:52 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
Bush pushes for next generation of nukes By Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY MERCURY, Nev.
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bushdoctrine; dubya; georgebush; nucleartesting; nuclearweapons; wmd
1
posted on
07/06/2003 9:04:00 PM PDT
by
squidly
To: squidly
WAY KEWL!
If we don't make them, someone else will.
2
posted on
07/06/2003 9:18:23 PM PDT
by
mfulstone
To: Miss Marple; Howlin; PhiKapMom
The realignment of the military and it's needs are a continuing pursuit with this President and Administration it seems..... Reckon it would be a priority with the democrats...... LOL.
3
posted on
07/06/2003 9:19:14 PM PDT
by
deport
(When ridin' ahead of the herd, take a look back every now and then to make sure it's still there))
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
ping
4
posted on
07/06/2003 9:22:43 PM PDT
by
Pan_Yans Wife
(Lurking since 2000.)
To: squidly
Bump.
5
posted on
07/06/2003 9:34:58 PM PDT
by
Lady In Blue
(Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld,Rice 2004)
Comment #6 Removed by Moderator
To: lifepreserver
I believe that increased reliance on nuclear power was part of the energy plan submitted by the Dubya administration a year or more ago. I haven't heard about any new construction, though. I'd be all for it.
7
posted on
07/06/2003 9:47:44 PM PDT
by
squidly
Comment #8 Removed by Moderator
To: squidly
The Senate never ratified the 1996 treaty. But like other nations, the United States abides by treaties it has signed, even if they have not been ratified.
Then what is the purpose of ratification by the United States Senate if the United States Federal Government just "abides by treaties it has signed"? Clinton signed the Kyoto Treaty, but NEVER submitted to the United States Senate since he knew that the necessary 2/3rds of the Senate would never ratify the treaty. It means nothing until ratification, and the Executive branch can make a show of following any treaty provisions, but they have no force of law, only what the Congress allows the Executive branch to get away with via greatly expanded definitions of "Executive Orders".
dvwjr
9
posted on
07/06/2003 10:18:31 PM PDT
by
dvwjr
To: squidly
Fallout is bad bad bad. I like the other idea of dropping steel rods from space.
To: squidly
".........little-noticed push............" Not quite.
National Review has had a number of articles on this subject (arguing for the development of new nuclear munitions; posted here at FR) over the last 2 years.
11
posted on
07/07/2003 6:43:41 AM PDT
by
DoctorMichael
(>>>>>Monday morning brain-freeze<<<<<)
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson