Anonymously contributed:
"U.S. Declassifies Nuclear Stockpile Details to Promote Transparency," By Donna Miles, American Forces Press Service, Washington, May 3, 2010, at
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days
-
LGBT intolerance problem at Sandia? I was just checking glassdoor.com and noticed several comments suggesting intolerance to LGBT at Sandia...
-
So did you SSVSP and why? Give details.
-
“Raise a concern, get blackballed then lose your job and benefits…” “…instead of raising your concerns just leverage on your skills and go t...
18 comments:
This is a big yawn. General numbers were known anyway (see the FAS website), but no breakdown was given by active vs inactive, weapon type, location, yield, etc. so no information of interest to anyone was revealed. Just a political move judged by Obama to be important, but in actuality, meaningless, as usual.
yeah. why didn't Bush declassify these documents then if they are "useless"? Just wondering.
yeah. why didn't Bush declassify these documents then if they are "useless"? Just wondering.
May 7, 2010 8:00 PM
Because Bush wasn't interested in meaningless politically correct gestures like Obama is. Plus, the interagency coordination to review and vet this action had to take many months - millions of dollars in federal employees' time.
Really? All of that effort to release, by your claim, "meaningless" information? Let us recap: You have determined it was meaningless information and at the same time you claim it cost millions and many months for the federal government to come to the same conclusion. Either you are clairvoyant or, more likely, you don't know what you are talking about. I think you don't know what you are talking about.
May 9, 2010 7:15 PM
You are pretty funny, Bush not interested in meaningless politically correct gestures and all. Please tell us what "Mission Accomplished " means to you.
"Mission Accomplished" was displayed on a banner aboard one of the Navy carriers after the bombing campaign ended, when Bush flew to the carrier to congratulate the Navy on the successful completion of that mission - it had been accomplished! Bush never said those words, and the banner certainly did not apply to the ground war, which hadn't even started yet!. Truth hurts, huh?
May 9, 2010 11:07 PM: You obviously don't understand the business of national security classification, or in this case, declassification. Although Formerly Restricted Data, like the total stockpile numbers, is formally under joint DOE/DoD control, in practice the DoD can exercise veto power over a declassification proposal. Any such proposal goes through a very formal process to determine that the information can be released WITHOUT risk to national security. So yes, it takes a long time and costs a lot to declassify information, and in the end, if it is released, it means the determination was made that it was not very important to keep classified, i.e., meaningless to national security. Get it now?
May 11, 2010 1:38 PM
Bush stated at the time (at the "Banner" event) that this was "the end to major combat operations in Iraq". This statement DID coincide with an end to the conventional phase of the war.
You are living in a dream world. By your reckoning, a painful (truth hurts) dream world, eh? The truth shall set you free, try it, you'll like it.
May 11, 2010 1:45 PM
Yes. I do get it now. It is perfectly clear now that you don't understand what "promote transparency" means. I suspect you have a similarly distorted understanding of what "Mission Accomplished" means as well. In fact, I suspect you are are the May 11, 2010 1:38 PM poster which would explain a lot. Facts are facts, they are unalterable.
Yes. I do get it now. It is perfectly clear now that you don't understand what "promote transparency" means.
May 12, 2010 7:06 AM
I didn't know that "promote transparency" was part of the Atomic Energy Act of of 1954 as amended, which controls the treatment (classification or declassification) of nuclear weapons data, and which trumps, big time, anything Obama decides is his "policy." And that's a fact.
May 11, 2010 1:45 PM: So what part of "the mission of the air war against Iraq has been accomplished" are you disagreeing with? And what part of "major combat operations have ended" are you disagreeing with? Or are you just disagreeable?
It is perfectly clear now that you don't understand what "promote transparency" means.
May 12, 2010 7:06 AM
What does that have to do with the government's rules, under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended, for handling (classifying and declassifying) nuclear weapons data? Obama has to obey the law, right?
May 12, 2010 9:53 PM
Hmm...
'so no information of interest to anyone was revealed. Just a political move judged by Obama to be important, but in actuality, meaningless, as usual.'
Should have disclosed some TSRD by your reckoning. Then you would have some useful information, right?I mean, that would be some real interesting stuff wouldn't it? Of course you would moan that it was, well, TSRD. Your motives are certainly "transparent" i.e. conservative agenda i.e. complain about the president whenever possible. Now that is a big yawn.
Let's see if you're yawning in November.
Pres. Obama´s declassification of the US nuke arsenal, and its idea that it is "to Promote Transparency" amongst other nuclear states, especially China, as well as, STOPPING Iran from becoming a nuclear state, and that North Korea WILL reveal the stats of its nuclear arsenal, is foremost based in the idea of "Zero Nukes In The World," in reality: "Zero US Nukes."
But, zero US nukes, or its US disarmament first strategy, is extremely dangerous, naive, counterproductive, and irrational for US nuclear strategy, where you first destroy the classic nuclear triad, that becomes a dyad, and finally, a singular leg before collapsing, as well as, US national security would be further threatened 24/7/365, and finally, the US nuclear umbrella would be destroyed, and our allies would be left ALONE, with a severe risk of nuclear proliferation, and US would defend itself with UNICORNS, but our enemy WILL HAVE NUKES!!! (My remark: Pres. Obama´s "Will To Nothingness US Nuke Strategy," i.e. Nihilism.)
The pipe dream of "zero nukes in the world," in reality: "zero US nukes," should be 100% REJECTED.
Conclusion
Say No To Zero US Nukes
Say No To Pres. Obama´s Weak Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) 2010
Say No To The Weak New Start Treaty
Say Yes To New US Nukes And Nuclear Testing
Say Yes To US Missile Defense
Defend The US Nuclear Triad
Defend The US Nuclear Umbrella
May 19, 2010 8:43 PM
I am just curious but are you a tea bag party member?
All the nuclear weapons, all the missile defense systems, all the testing will not prevent North Korea from nuking South Korea or India nuking Pakistan or terrorists from nuking a major metropolitan center in the U.S.. Any one who thinks differently is either a Republican or a tea bag party member.
Oh, is it true?
http://theintelhub.com/2010/05/28/simmons-calls-for-obama-to-take-over-bp-military-to-nuke-oil-leak/
Yeehaw!
Post a Comment