Monday, May 20, 2013


This is coolbert:

"not deploy new weapons"

"Obama accused of nuclear U-turn as guided weapons plan emerges"

Thanks to the Guardian for this alarming [at least to Europeans] headline.

"Plan to spend $10bn on updating nuclear bombs goes against 2010 pledge not to deploy new weapons, say critics"

"Under the plan, nearly 200 B61 gravity bombs stockpiled in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey would be given new tail fins that would turn them into guided weapons that could be delivered by stealth F35 fighter-bombers."

Obama has broken his pledge? Is this so?


Taking an already existing weapon and improving it so that weapon becomes more effective is not introducing a NEW WEAPON! My emphasis on the word NEW!

This sounds like those B61 atomic bombs being fitted, or at least with an ability to be fitted, on very short notice, with a JDAMs strap on kit. Allow the "dumb" bomb to become a "smart" guided munitions using GPS for guidance.

Atomic munitions just made better, that already EXISTING NUCLEAR WEAPON IMPROVED!

NOT a new weapon as that term generally, ordinarily and commonly understood.

For those favoring a reduction of nuclear stockpiles, this should be considered as a PLUS and not a negative. Because that B61 will now be MORE ACCURATE fewer will be needed as a deterrent. Existing stockpiles can be reduced in number.

NOR would I have to think that adding a strap on JDAMs kit to an already in-the-inventory atomic bomb is a violation of existing treaties and internationally agreed upon covenants. This is correct?

Keep in mind that since the late 1960's American nuclear warheads have been drastically reduced in number, that inventory of fitted and stockpiled atomic ordnance now only about 15 % of what it was forty years ago.


No comments: