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
"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
Comments
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.
You are pretty funny, Bush not interested in meaningless politically correct gestures and all. Please tell us what "Mission Accomplished " means to you.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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
I am just curious but are you a tea bag party member?
http://theintelhub.com/2010/05/28/simmons-calls-for-obama-to-take-over-bp-military-to-nuke-oil-leak/
Yeehaw!