NationStates Jolt Archive

I find it hard, if not impossible, to believe that Bush heard about the torture of Iraqi POW's from the media and not Rumsfelt himself. Seeing how they are all buddy-buddy I'm very sceptic about Rumsfelt keeping that from him.

I suspect that when Rumsfelt found out about the torture, if he didn't give outright permission for it from day one, he instantly informed Bush, and next the decision was made to keep it quiet in order to not look even worse than they already did. Bush probably assured Rumsfelt that if the torture was found out by the media he would cover his ass if he would take the fall for notifying anyone about it.

The way I see it this little theory is the only way I can understand Bush protecting Rumsfelt the way he does. I mean, to the outside world Rumsfelt has most adequately proven that he isn't fit to be minister of anything by keeping the data about the torture to himself, and still Bush insists to keep him on. Something that reflects very poorly on his own person, not something he can use, far from it.

The problem is that Bush has never been in control of that White House and this situation illustrates it. He does what he's told and those around him (Rummy, Rove, Cheney, Wolfie, etc.) make sure he feels like he's doing the right thing so they can advance their agenda. I completely believe that the tounge-lashing he handed down to Rummy was because he didn't know about this until it broke on the T.V. He is so out of touch with the realities of the situation because his handlers make sure he stays out of touch.

F*** Bush!!!! :x

F*** Bush!!!! :x

Thankfully, that's Laura's job. However, it seems like he's doing a pretty good job of F***ing himself. Let's hope the trend continues.

Because Bush is a douche and so is Rumsfeld

Because Bush is a douche and so is Rumsfeld

Amen

F*** Bush!!!! :x
Ewww...Why would anyone f--- Bush?

How bout because Rumsfeld works for him. And he hired Rumsfeld.

I agree with Cuneo. Why hire someone only to stab them?

if i wanted to win an election, i wouldnt touch rumsfled with a ten-foot pole.

F*** Bush!!!! :x
Ewww...Why would anyone f--- Bush?

I f--- bush... in a lower-case sense... :lol:

If that's too crude, please don't do anything horrible to me, mods!

This thread is about not being cruel, remember...

Very sorry if this double-posts. Server troubles.

It might be out of loyalty.

Alternatively, bear in mind that Bush can only sack him ONCE, and after he does sack him Bush can have nobody else to blame for policy errors. If Bush thinks that things are going to get worse anyway, he may wish to wait for a while before jettisoning Rumsfeld.

Why does Bush protect Rumsfeld? Let's put politics asside for a moment, and you'll see why. Rumsfeld is an expert on feeding the military machine raw meat, and the military loves it.
Let's go back to the First Gulf War. From Rumsfeld's former arch-rival, Sec. Cheney, to Sec. Cohen, the "peace dividend" has left the army shrinking, yet not really advancing. The Crusader artillery system illustrates this. It was a 90-ton, rapid-fire artillery system from the Clinton administration. It was perfect for destroying large military installations, but even then, those weren't our defense needs.
Enter Rumsfeld. He saw the military of the BushI-Clinton years as a lumbering giant: strong yet clumsy. He set out to reform it for the 21st century. And he's done a good job at it. Just recently, he cancelled the Comache recon helicopter project. While it'd be great for the Cold War, UAVs were just as able to carry out the same jobs against the current enemies.
Rumsfeld is reshaping the military, making it respond to the smaller, yet deadlier threats of today. Bush is protecting him because Rumsfeld is the best man to reform the military structure, and make the US military a potent force again.

Colin Powell claimed that Bush/Rumsfeld knew about the red cross reports of torture and chose to ignore it

How bout because Rumsfeld works for him. And he hired Rumsfeld.

Good point. It would make Bush look bad if he looked down upon Rumsfeld.

How bout because Rumsfeld works for him. And he hired Rumsfeld.

Good point. It would make Bush look bad if he looked down upon Rumsfeld.

I agree with Cuneo. Why hire someone only to stab them?

Are you saying that Bush firing Rumsfeld would equate "stabing him in the back"? :shock:

How bout because Rumsfeld works for him. And he hired Rumsfeld.

Good point. It would make Bush look bad if he looked down upon Rumsfeld.

Oh yes, and he's looking real good now by taking him into protection :lol:

Bush should fire himself, all the way to Iraq and Afghanistan and make him suffer there.

Bush is protecting him because Rumsfeld is the best man to reform the military structure, and make the US military a potent force again.

Thats just the party line, aka "fiction", that is used to justify keeping him on. :(

Alternatively, bear in mind that Bush can only sack him ONCE, and after he does sack him Bush can have nobody else to blame for policy errors. If Bush thinks that things are going to get worse anyway, he may wish to wait for a while before jettisoning Rumsfeld.


Good point! :)

And it sure looks like Bush is going to need a "patsy-on-hold".

Bush is protecting him because Rumsfeld is the best man to reform the military structure, and make the US military a potent force again.

Thats just the party line, aka "fiction", that is used to justify keeping him on. :(
Let me tell you what he's done.
-He's drifted the military away from the concept of big nukes, and is trying to get smaller nukes in developement so that they can attack a very small target, perhaps less than 5,000 square feet.
-He has set the timetable to cut the larger ships in the navy by half, perhaps by as much as 25%. For example, an aircraft carrier (forgot which one) will be decomminished in the next few years without replacement. Instead, the navy will consist more and more of destroyers, patrol boats, and other small boats.
-He has escalated the digitalization of the army, having the 4th infantry division already fully digitalized--a commander's dream
-He has emphasized the importance of UAVs
These are just a few examples of what he's done for the military.

Purly, the idea that the military loves Rumsfeld is the biggest fiction of them all. The NY Post ran an editorial today (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/20841.htm) that claimed "I have never seen such distrust of a public official in the senior ranks. Not even of Bill Clinton." That's a hell of a statement from a right-wing mouthpiece like the Post. And Rumsfeld is catching hell from the Army Times as well. He's not the hero many in the press seem to think he is.

Purly, the idea that the military loves Rumsfeld is the biggest fiction of them all. The NY Post ran an editorial today (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/20841.htm) that claimed "I have never seen such distrust of a public official in the senior ranks. Not even of Bill Clinton." That's a hell of a statement from a right-wing mouthpiece like the Post. And Rumsfeld is catching hell from the Army Times as well. He's not the hero many in the press seem to think he is.
Perhaps he's not loved, but he gets the job done. That's what I was trying to say, anyhow. In fact, I guess it can be argued that he isn't loved because of his success, as he's actively working so that one day, only a few generals can maneuver the whole might of the US military using machines. It's not a far-fetched notion, considering what he's doing to the military. In any case, he's making it more of a potent fighting force.

I would argue that it's precisely because he's not getting the job done that he's becoming loathed by the military. He's ignored anyone who has disagreed with him and as a result, he's really screwed the pooch when it comes to Iraq.

Let me tell you what he's done.
-He's drifted the military away from the concept of big nukes, and is trying to get smaller nukes in developement so that they can attack a very small target, perhaps less than 5,000 square feet.

-He has set the timetable to cut the larger ships in the navy by half, perhaps by as much as 25%. For example, an aircraft carrier (forgot which one) will be decomminished in the next few years without replacement. Instead, the navy will consist more and more of destroyers, patrol boats, and other small boats.

-He has escalated the digitalization of the army, having the 4th infantry division already fully digitalized--a commander's dream

-He has emphasized the importance of UAVs
These are just a few examples of what he's done for the military.

Allow me to point out a few flaws in Rumsfeld's military theory.

Nukes are, at best, a highly sensitive issue. They are best left as the mighty detterent force that they currently are so they are not used in battlefield situations due to the vast public outcry against their use. Miniturizing them for tactical use is possible yes, but have we found any applicable situation where a commander needs a larger payload than what we currently have?

Conventional warheads have far less severe political implications and smaller enviornmental impacts, they are also vastly cheaper to produce and maintain. I would hasten to point out that the "small nuke" theory came out of a military think tank that was coming up with possible things that could be done. The group had in no way endorsed the small-nuke idea when Rumsfeld decided to implement it.

The navy's aircraft carrier fleet is aging to be sure, but its size does not equal ineffectiveness. Aircraft carriers allow the US to project force to areas that otherwise have little air power and provide C&C for larger task forces as in the perisan gulf. They provide flexible responses to small and large conflicts and provide a large intimidation factor that aids in political situations (you'll remember that a carriers were used to put a lean on China when Taiwan was having elections in recent years). There is currently no suitable replacement for these advantages, thus I can only surmize that the plan to reduce the airpower of the US forces overseas is poorly thought out. Instead we should be finding mid-size alternitives to the current carrier fleet and phasing IN such craft before ever considering mothballing the larger craft.

His digitization of the 4th infantry IS good, and escalating such programs will provide benifits to our armed services, I wish however the decision to butcher the training and deployment process hadn't been made. Unit Cohesion will suffer regardless of what toys we equip on our boys.

UAVs are again a toy given way too much press. They are remarkably useful and highly effective. They are also tremendously overused and over-hyped. The instances of a Hellfire missle being used to blow up a rock, or a wooden wagon, or the wrong target, are examples of why you simply cannot replace the man on the ground with fancy tech.

These are a few examples of why Rumsfeld's miltary tactics are unsound and his reforms hurt more than they help. I care little about his personality, his possible involvement in the abuses at the prison are not provable and thus irrelevant to me. His policies are flawed. His Theory on how to fight war is mistaken.

Let me tell you what he's done.
-He's drifted the military away from the concept of big nukes, and is trying to get smaller nukes in developement so that they can attack a very small target, perhaps less than 5,000 square feet.

-He has set the timetable to cut the larger ships in the navy by half, perhaps by as much as 25%. For example, an aircraft carrier (forgot which one) will be decomminished in the next few years without replacement. Instead, the navy will consist more and more of destroyers, patrol boats, and other small boats.

-He has escalated the digitalization of the army, having the 4th infantry division already fully digitalized--a commander's dream

-He has emphasized the importance of UAVs
These are just a few examples of what he's done for the military.

Allow me to point out a few flaws in Rumsfeld's military theory.

Nukes are, at best, a highly sensitive issue. They are best left as the mighty detterent force that they currently are so they are not used in battlefield situations due to the vast public outcry against their use. Miniturizing them for tactical use is possible yes, but have we found any applicable situation where a commander needs a larger payload than what we currently have?

Conventional warheads have far less severe political implications and smaller enviornmental impacts, they are also vastly cheaper to produce and maintain. I would hasten to point out that the "small nuke" theory came out of a military think tank that was coming up with possible things that could be done. The group had in no way endorsed the small-nuke idea when Rumsfeld decided to implement it.

The navy's aircraft carrier fleet is aging to be sure, but its size does not equal ineffectiveness. Aircraft carriers allow the US to project force to areas that otherwise have little air power and provide C&C for larger task forces as in the perisan gulf. They provide flexible responses to small and large conflicts and provide a large intimidation factor that aids in political situations (you'll remember that a carriers were used to put a lean on China when Taiwan was having elections in recent years). There is currently no suitable replacement for these advantages, thus I can only surmize that the plan to reduce the airpower of the US forces overseas is poorly thought out. Instead we should be finding mid-size alternitives to the current carrier fleet and phasing IN such craft before ever considering mothballing the larger craft.

His digitization of the 4th infantry IS good, and escalating such programs will provide benifits to our armed services, I wish however the decision to butcher the training and deployment process hadn't been made. Unit Cohesion will suffer regardless of what toys we equip on our boys.

UAVs are again a toy given way too much press. They are remarkably useful and highly effective. They are also tremendously overused and over-hyped. The instances of a Hellfire missle being used to blow up a rock, or a wooden wagon, or the wrong target, are examples of why you simply cannot replace the man on the ground with fancy tech.

These are a few examples of why Rumsfeld's miltary tactics are unsound and his reforms hurt more than they help. I care little about his personality, his possible involvement in the abuses at the prison are not provable and thus irrelevant to me. His policies are flawed. His Theory on how to fight war is mistaken.
I feel that Rummy has only prepared the military for the inevitable. Manned weapons of some form will always exist, but they'll be fewer and fewer.
Going on to your point about nukes. The nuclear research is, again, inevitable. From a military perspective, it's very wasteful to have thousands of nukes, designed to blow up entire cities, and yet they haven't seen any action in decades. The military would probably love having smaller, less damaging nukes at their disposal. We already have the means to test their feasibility before they are built. For example, you're heard about that supercomputer the DOE wants to build in Tenessee, right? That'll only be the fastest in civilian use. Faster computers are being developed by the military, but it's to test nukes without actually detonating them. Believe me, with testing methods like that, I think that we can at least try developing a program of mini-nukes. The political fallout can be masked if we give this secrecy like the Manhattan project.
As for the UAVs, I fail to see your point. If you mean by overhyped, you mean that the media expects UAVs to replace manned combat planes, then I think it's overhyped. But it has replaced manned planes for a few things, especially reconnaisance. Strapping a hellfire to a predator plane just gives it some abilities on the ground. I believe that UAVs will, in some form, start to replace cargo planes in the near future, and they'll be just as effective. Rummy isn't really hurting the military. He's just changing it into the high-tech army of the future. The only reason the troops are a little disgruntled is that it means less work for them.

I feel that Rummy has only prepared the military for the inevitable. Manned weapons of some form will always exist, but they'll be fewer and fewer.

Going on to your point about nukes. The nuclear research is, again, inevitable. From a military perspective, it's very wasteful to have thousands of nukes, designed to blow up entire cities, and yet they haven't seen any action in decades. The military would probably love having smaller, less damaging nukes at their disposal. We already have the means to test their feasibility before they are built. For example, you're heard about that supercomputer the DOE wants to build in Tenessee, right? That'll only be the fastest in civilian use. Faster computers are being developed by the military, but it's to test nukes without actually detonating them.

Believe me, with testing methods like that, I think that we can at least try developing a program of mini-nukes. The political fallout can be masked if we give this secrecy like the Manhattan project.

As for the UAVs, I fail to see your point. If you mean by overhyped, you mean that the media expects UAVs to replace manned combat planes, then I think it's overhyped. But it has replaced manned planes for a few things, especially reconnaisance. Strapping a hellfire to a predator plane just gives it some abilities on the ground. I believe that UAVs will, in some form, start to replace cargo planes in the near future, and they'll be just as effective. Rummy isn't really hurting the military. He's just changing it into the high-tech army of the future. The only reason the troops are a little disgruntled is that it means less work for them.

Robotic soldiers again? Sheesh, I want to keep casualties down as much as the next guy but this is just pathetic. When will the techphiles understand that winning the battle and winning the war are different things? You start parading your metal and plastic toys around another nation's town square and you're gonna further dehumanize world perception of the US. This will be a public relations nightmare, and don't for a second believe that the military is not beholden to the public perception, there are few things the military needs MORE than "hearts and minds" and you're not gonna get that with robots.

Your line, "the military would probably love" is the most BLATANTLY false precept and the core of the sickness in the argument. The military has shown and advocated no build up of Nuke stockpiles; who has? The civilian defense contractors and the extremist political elements of the US! The military is being forcefed this "small-nuke" bull because it will make money, not because it will make people safe in the US. Its a horrible idea, fraught with enough political fallout (to use a term) to make any commander's head spin.

I strongly argue against your "wasteful" argument. The Nuke deterrance theory is exceedingly dangerous and should be funded and managed properly, but when correctly applied it allows the US to establish a limit on all foriegn-nation aggression. This is an invaluable tool for US policy; provided our vastly superior fire power the most an aggessor can hope for is a no-win situation; only madmen go over that line. If you remove this cap the US becomes just another nation that can be defeated in combat, there is no limiter on aggression.

The fesibility of small-nukes is no question. Of course we can make them. We can also make black-plauge, anthrax, nerve gas and many other horrific weapons. They all have some pratcial use in combat theaters; even when retreating from a biological weapons lab in Manchuria the Japanese killed over 10,000 Chinese soldiers and civilians with Black Pluage; effectively covering their retreat. One might look at that and see what an invaluable tool it was for Japanese commanders.

To suggest that a weapon so villified as a nuke would make a good tactical weapon is to ignore the most basic precepts of human interactions. The point has never been IF we could make them, there is simply no point to them as they do more harm to us than any enemy you could possibly list. You wanna help our commanders out? Give them better trained soldiers, better equiped and specialized Vehicles, better protection against friendly-fire incidents. The billions it would take to take such a program from start to finish would be better used to further our troops REAL needs.

Manhattan-project secrecy works only until people notice higher radiation levels when you use the bombs. Besides, since we are discussing this on an open forum; I'd say the cat's out of the bag already huh? I know where the small-nuke theory came from and I know generals have spoken out against it; this hardly bodes well for any attempt to be secretive.

Rummy is a techphlie, he loves the technology at the expense of the soldier using it. This theory is unsound at the most basic levels. Why automate our transports? Has some need been shown that we must do this? Have troops been killed piloting them? Is there ANY convieveable reason we would want to divert funding from our troops to these robots other than the fact that it SOUNDS COOL?! Modernization means making our military more effective, effective does not mean human-less, it means user-friendly. Stop worrying about how much we can change our military just because we can do it and focus instead on what our military needs to make its job easier and more effective.

Rumsfeld works for him.

I feel that Rummy has only prepared the military for the inevitable. Manned weapons of some form will always exist, but they'll be fewer and fewer.

Going on to your point about nukes. The nuclear research is, again, inevitable. From a military perspective, it's very wasteful to have thousands of nukes, designed to blow up entire cities, and yet they haven't seen any action in decades. The military would probably love having smaller, less damaging nukes at their disposal. We already have the means to test their feasibility before they are built. For example, you're heard about that supercomputer the DOE wants to build in Tenessee, right? That'll only be the fastest in civilian use. Faster computers are being developed by the military, but it's to test nukes without actually detonating them.

Believe me, with testing methods like that, I think that we can at least try developing a program of mini-nukes. The political fallout can be masked if we give this secrecy like the Manhattan project.

As for the UAVs, I fail to see your point. If you mean by overhyped, you mean that the media expects UAVs to replace manned combat planes, then I think it's overhyped. But it has replaced manned planes for a few things, especially reconnaisance. Strapping a hellfire to a predator plane just gives it some abilities on the ground. I believe that UAVs will, in some form, start to replace cargo planes in the near future, and they'll be just as effective. Rummy isn't really hurting the military. He's just changing it into the high-tech army of the future. The only reason the troops are a little disgruntled is that it means less work for them.

Robotic soldiers again? Sheesh, I want to keep casualties down as much as the next guy but this is just pathetic. When will the techphiles understand that winning the battle and winning the war are different things? You start parading your metal and plastic toys around another nation's town square and you're gonna further dehumanize world perception of the US. This will be a public relations nightmare, and don't for a second believe that the military is not beholden to the public perception, there are few things the military needs MORE than "hearts and minds" and you're not gonna get that with robots.

Your line, "the military would probably love" is the most BLATANTLY false precept and the core of the sickness in the argument. The military has shown and advocated no build up of Nuke stockpiles; who has? The civilian defense contractors and the extremist political elements of the US! The military is being forcefed this "small-nuke" bull because it will make money, not because it will make people safe in the US. Its a horrible idea, fraught with enough political fallout (to use a term) to make any commander's head spin.

I strongly argue against your "wasteful" argument. The Nuke deterrance theory is exceedingly dangerous and should be funded and managed properly, but when correctly applied it allows the US to establish a limit on all foriegn-nation aggression. This is an invaluable tool for US policy; provided our vastly superior fire power the most an aggessor can hope for is a no-win situation; only madmen go over that line. If you remove this cap the US becomes just another nation that can be defeated in combat, there is no limiter on aggression.

The fesibility of small-nukes is no question. Of course we can make them. We can also make black-plauge, anthrax, nerve gas and many other horrific weapons. They all have some pratcial use in combat theaters; even when retreating from a biological weapons lab in Manchuria the Japanese killed over 10,000 Chinese soldiers and civilians with Black Pluage; effectively covering their retreat. One might look at that and see what an invaluable tool it was for Japanese commanders.

To suggest that a weapon so villified as a nuke would make a good tactical weapon is to ignore the most basic precepts of human interactions. The point has never been IF we could make them, there is simply no point to them as they do more harm to us than any enemy you could possibly list. You wanna help our commanders out? Give them better trained soldiers, better equiped and specialized Vehicles, better protection against friendly-fire incidents. The billions it would take to take such a program from start to finish would be better used to further our troops REAL needs.

Manhattan-project secrecy works only until people notice higher radiation levels when you use the bombs. Besides, since we are discussing this on an open forum; I'd say the cat's out of the bag already huh? I know where the small-nuke theory came from and I know generals have spoken out against it; this hardly bodes well for any attempt to be secretive.

Rummy is a techphlie, he loves the technology at the expense of the soldier using it. This theory is unsound at the most basic levels. Why automate our transports? Has some need been shown that we must do this? Have troops been killed piloting them? Is there ANY convieveable reason we would want to divert funding from our troops to these robots other than the fact that it SOUNDS COOL?! Modernization means making our military more effective, effective does not mean human-less, it means user-friendly. Stop worrying about how much we can change our military just because we can do it and focus instead on what our military needs to make its job easier and more effective.
Less soldiers doing jobs like flying cargo planes and reconnaisance means more troops can actually be on the field, fighting. However, infantry will be regulated to jobs like occupation and maybe some reconnaisance of some hard-to-get places, which UAVs, U-2s or sattelites can't do.
As for the nukes, I'm not saying we should get rid of all of our Cold War stockpile. You're right by saying they are a good detterant against organized nations. But there's a difference between organized nations, like the former Soviet Union, and the more decentralized terrorists we are seeing today. Organized nations rely on cities and outlying villages. Hypothetically, if we were to nuke cities in China, the cities themselves would be destroyed, killing millions. The fallout would render cropland around it useless. Should this happen in China, or any nation, the country would collapse.
It's different for a terrorist. Sometimes, they use states, but not most of the time. They need little to survive. Their sole mission in life is to hurt the infidels, not maintain nations. They will develop any weapons they can, including WMDs. Tapes found in Afghanistan show them testing chemical agents on dogs. It was accompanied by a manuel, showing that they've learned increasingly advanced chemicals. It'll only be a matter of time before they can develop VX nerve gas.
Conventional weapons will destroy the facilties being worked on, but will it destroy the WMDs completely? Will they leak out and kill innocents in the area? Or if it's a nuke, what's the risk that some of it may be salvaged.
Nuking weapons like these are the best way to destroy them. But A-bombs won't work, as most people in the area are innocent. The only solution to all of these questions are mini-nukes. They'll destroy a small compound, but little more. The fallout will be minimal, comfined to only a small radius, and being small in volume.
Yet this can work as a detterant, if it's combined with extremely good intelligence gathering and a campaign to make both concepts known. It'll send a message to terrorists that if they develope WMDs, they, along with the weapons, will be instantly destroyed. It's detterance against terrorists attacking the US, much like atomic bombs were deterrants for large armies attacking America.

Less soldiers doing jobs like flying cargo planes and reconnaisance means more troops can actually be on the field, fighting. However, infantry will be regulated to jobs like occupation and maybe some reconnaisance of some hard-to-get places, which UAVs, U-2s or sattelites can't do.

As for the nukes, I'm not saying we should get rid of all of our Cold War stockpile. You're right by saying they are a good detterant against organized nations. But there's a difference between organized nations, like the former Soviet Union, and the more decentralized terrorists we are seeing today. Organized nations rely on cities and outlying villages. Hypothetically, if we were to nuke cities in China, the cities themselves would be destroyed, killing millions. The fallout would render cropland around it useless. Should this happen in China, or any nation, the country would collapse.

It's different for a terrorist. Sometimes, they use states, but not most of the time. They need little to survive. Their sole mission in life is to hurt the infidels, not maintain nations. They will develop any weapons they can, including WMDs. Tapes found in Afghanistan show them testing chemical agents on dogs. It was accompanied by a manuel, showing that they've learned increasingly advanced chemicals. It'll only be a matter of time before they can develop VX nerve gas.

Conventional weapons will destroy the facilties being worked on, but will it destroy the WMDs completely? Will they leak out and kill innocents in the area? Or if it's a nuke, what's the risk that some of it may be salvaged.
Nuking weapons like these are the best way to destroy them. But A-bombs won't work, as most people in the area are innocent. The only solution to all of these questions are mini-nukes. They'll destroy a small compound, but little more. The fallout will be minimal, comfined to only a small radius, and being small in volume.

Yet this can work as a detterant, if it's combined with extremely good intelligence gathering and a campaign to make both concepts known. It'll send a message to terrorists that if they develope WMDs, they, along with the weapons, will be instantly destroyed. It's detterance against terrorists attacking the US, much like atomic bombs were deterrants for large armies attacking America.

The only people these automated planes would spare for the battlefield are the pilot, the co-pilot...and that's about it. All the ground crew would still be needed, as manual checks and cargo tracking are still used to prevent computer mistallies or catch thefts. The size of the cargo fleet in the US military is small enough that these extra soldiers would barely form a company or two of infantry. Not the most persuasive of arguments. Consider the cost of hiring two more soldiers and training them, place that against the cost of creating a jet equipped with this system and maintaining it (I'll wave the astronomical costs of R&D for such a device if you'll waive the costs of replacing said soldiers every few years.) The ends do not fit the means. Simply put the tiny fraction of pilots we would spare from the comparitively safe job of cargo hauling to place in the exceedingly dangerous infantry positions do not add up to any gains.

"Conventional weapons will destroy the facilties being worked on, but will it destroy the WMDs completely? " Depends on the weapon used of course. The vaunted "daisy cutters" would do the trick nicely. Chemical and Biological weapons also have storage problems, they tend to be rendered useless if improperly stored. I daresay a giant hole in their storage facility would be improper.

Nuking nukes to prevent nukes from spreading fallout. You do realize that small-nukes carry heavy enviornmental burdens as well as their full-size cousins right? Even those proposing the small-nuke give it a mission-profile of being used against hardened, underground targets. Thus limiting its air-based fallout, however it neglects the almost certain contamination of soil and groundwater (if any) that is in the area.

Nukes, no matter how small, are gonna do LASTING damage. There is no such thing right now (or under development) that could be labeled a clean-nuke; one that would not poison the surrounding area.

Nuke's inherant limitations aside, you mention conventional weapons as if they are somehow unequal to the targets mentioned. There is no such indication of this. We have many bombs that are designed for bunker-busting, those that have penetration and incineration capability. Simply put, what you are proposing to do with nukes is already being done with conventional warheads! There is no reason to make something that fufills the same mission-profile as our conventional weapons.

Look closely at the Afganistan conflict, study what after-action reports and such that are available to civilians. The US ran into the nasty task of attacking a hardened cave complex in the mountains of Tora Bora as well as other difficult targets. The main problem was locating the target caves to hit, not getting sufficient power to knock them out. Our attack capabilites are sufficient, and the commanders on the ground had no grumblings that I could find about insufficient fire power from the sky. The lack of good intelligence was the key factor...perhaps some C-10 pilots would be useful over there? (I apologize, a cheap shot)

The whole reason for defending Rumsfeld is simple: he is part of Bush's cabinet.

According to Machiavellian thought, a leader is viewed by his constituence based partially on whom he chooses to help him/her run a country.

Therefore, in order to save face and show unity, Bush is defending Rumsfeld (notice not "Rumsfelt").

However, I do not believe that Rumsfeld knew about the torture per se, but rather found out just before the media got ahold of it.

As with any major event, it is always those few soldiers in Iraq that are extreme that paint a negative face on the war and the current administration.

I say don't judge Bush and Rumsfeld based solely on this situation. Neither one of them ordered this to be done because neither one of them would purposely go against the Geneva Conventions. It would be political and international suicide for them to have ignored them. In other words, to think that this is some huge conspiracy and that the torture was ordered is highly improbable.

Anyways, I am too tired, so if you can't understand me, I am sorry... :-(

Bush is protecting him because Rumsfeld is the best man to reform the military structure, and make the US military a potent force again.

Thats just the party line, aka "fiction", that is used to justify keeping him on. :(

On the contrary, the military was in a mess after the Congres emasculated the military after the first Gulf War..fully 40,000 Marines were forced out from my beloved Marine Corps..the Army lost entire Divisions, the Air Force lost multiple combat squadrons...the Navy beached several vesses and tens of thousands of sailors..Luckily the Military was able to accomodate their demands with some simple changing of retirement..the Navy and Marines were giving out 15 yr retirements instead of the normal 20..but thousands of servicembers were just simply informed they couldn''t reenlist....the Marine Corps was set long ago at 177,000 personnel with 10% women..Congress wanted to cut the Corps to 144,000...the Commandant of the Marine Corps had to go before Congress and tell them flat out he could not accomplish the mission assigned to the Corps with numbers that low, deployments would go from 6 months to 9 months, he would lose people and further inhibit combat capabilities...luckily we escaped the axe that time..

The idea was that the Reserves could fill many of the jobs the Active Duty contingent was losing....that was a bad idea in my opinino...fully 40% of those in Iraq right now are either Reserve or National Guard units..I never have approved of weekend warriors taking the place of fully-trained active duty components..Granted...many of that 40% may be in logistical/support functions but there is also a sizeable combat element, regardless even logistical and support units can come under fire. I wouldn't want some 7-11 clerk fighting next to me who is a machine gunner 1 weekend a month and two weeks in the summer.

Rumsfeld for all the naysayers did in fact begin to streamline the military, shape it for functions in a post Cold War enviroment.

...the Commandant of the Marine Corps had to go before Congress and tell them flat out he could not accomplish the mission assigned to the Corps with numbers that low, deployments would go from 6 months to 9 months, he would lose people and further inhibit combat capabilities...luckily we escaped the axe that time...

Was that the year General Krulak said [and I'm paraphrasing here], "...with the United States Marine Corps, our nation gets 15% of its firepower with only 5% of its military budget."

When did you serve Salishe or are you still serving? Where and what MOS? Maybe our paths have crossed pretty close (active '89-99 1st LAI Bn/LAV Mechanic & 9th Comm. Bn/Electronics Technician) :D

Alternatively, bear in mind that Bush can only sack him ONCE, and after he does sack him Bush can have nobody else to blame for policy errors. If Bush thinks that things are going to get worse anyway, he may wish to wait for a while before jettisoning Rumsfeld.

I like your whipping boy theory. I do think that Dumbsfeld will be sacked before the election. He's a liability and Bush will have to get rid of him. I was just wondering why Bush was waiting, and backing him. This makes perfect sense.

...the Commandant of the Marine Corps had to go before Congress and tell them flat out he could not accomplish the mission assigned to the Corps with numbers that low, deployments would go from 6 months to 9 months, he would lose people and further inhibit combat capabilities...luckily we escaped the axe that time...

Was that the year General Krulak said [and I'm paraphrasing here], "...with the United States Marine Corps, our nation gets 15% of its firepower with only 5% of its military budget."

When did you serve Salishe or are you still serving? Where and what MOS? Maybe our paths have crossed pretty close (active '89-99 1st LAI Bn/LAV Mechanic & 9th Comm. Bn/Electronics Technician) :D

Fraid our paths would not have passed...well..maybe they might have, or at the very least our units may have crossed...I was 0311 1966-1970 9th Marine Regiment, Republic of South Vietnam, Camp Pendleton. 1970-1974 Marine Detachment USS Enterprise, 1975-1978 2nd Recruit Training Battalion, MCRD Parris Island, 1979 - 1983 8th Marine Regiment Camp Lejuene, 1983-1986 US State Dept Marine Security Guard Battalion, Quantico VA, retired....reactivated 1990-1991 For service with 1st MarDiv Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, released from active service back to retirement...left my legacy to my sons who even now are currently serving in the Marine Corps, one who enlisted prior to 9/11/01, the second afterward.

...the Commandant of the Marine Corps had to go before Congress and tell them flat out he could not accomplish the mission assigned to the Corps with numbers that low, deployments would go from 6 months to 9 months, he would lose people and further inhibit combat capabilities...luckily we escaped the axe that time...

Was that the year General Krulak said [and I'm paraphrasing here], "...with the United States Marine Corps, our nation gets 15% of its firepower with only 5% of its military budget."

When did you serve Salishe or are you still serving? Where and what MOS? Maybe our paths have crossed pretty close (active '89-99 1st LAI Bn/LAV Mechanic & 9th Comm. Bn/Electronics Technician) :D

Fraid our paths would not have passed...well..maybe they might have, or at the very least our units may have crossed...I was 0311 1966-1970 9th Marine Regiment, Republic of South Vietnam, Camp Pendleton. 1970-1974 Marine Detachment USS Enterprise, 1975-1978 2nd Recruit Training Battalion, MCRD Parris Island, 1979 - 1983 8th Marine Regiment Camp Lejuene, 1983-1986 US State Dept Marine Security Guard Battalion, Quantico VA, retired....reactivated 1990-1991 For service with 1st MarDiv Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, released from active service back to retirement...left my legacy to my sons who even now are currently serving in the Marine Corps, one who enlisted prior to 9/11/01, the second afterward.

Wow! They may have crossed (at least real estate wise) during Desert Shield/Desert Storm because we belonged to the 1st MarDiv - I spent "Shield" at Manifa Bay and "Storm" up at a place we called "Q-Town" which was 3 clicks from the border.

Did you remain an 03xx and if so did you stay enlisted or did you later become an officer?

When you were at Parris Island, were you in a support role or were you a "Hat"?

Less soldiers doing jobs like flying cargo planes and reconnaisance means more troops can actually be on the field, fighting. However, infantry will be regulated to jobs like occupation and maybe some reconnaisance of some hard-to-get places, which UAVs, U-2s or sattelites can't do.

As for the nukes, I'm not saying we should get rid of all of our Cold War stockpile. You're right by saying they are a good detterant against organized nations. But there's a difference between organized nations, like the former Soviet Union, and the more decentralized terrorists we are seeing today. Organized nations rely on cities and outlying villages. Hypothetically, if we were to nuke cities in China, the cities themselves would be destroyed, killing millions. The fallout would render cropland around it useless. Should this happen in China, or any nation, the country would collapse.

It's different for a terrorist. Sometimes, they use states, but not most of the time. They need little to survive. Their sole mission in life is to hurt the infidels, not maintain nations. They will develop any weapons they can, including WMDs. Tapes found in Afghanistan show them testing chemical agents on dogs. It was accompanied by a manuel, showing that they've learned increasingly advanced chemicals. It'll only be a matter of time before they can develop VX nerve gas.

Conventional weapons will destroy the facilties being worked on, but will it destroy the WMDs completely? Will they leak out and kill innocents in the area? Or if it's a nuke, what's the risk that some of it may be salvaged.
Nuking weapons like these are the best way to destroy them. But A-bombs won't work, as most people in the area are innocent. The only solution to all of these questions are mini-nukes. They'll destroy a small compound, but little more. The fallout will be minimal, comfined to only a small radius, and being small in volume.

Yet this can work as a detterant, if it's combined with extremely good intelligence gathering and a campaign to make both concepts known. It'll send a message to terrorists that if they develope WMDs, they, along with the weapons, will be instantly destroyed. It's detterance against terrorists attacking the US, much like atomic bombs were deterrants for large armies attacking America.

The only people these automated planes would spare for the battlefield are the pilot, the co-pilot...and that's about it. All the ground crew would still be needed, as manual checks and cargo tracking are still used to prevent computer mistallies or catch thefts. The size of the cargo fleet in the US military is small enough that these extra soldiers would barely form a company or two of infantry. Not the most persuasive of arguments. Consider the cost of hiring two more soldiers and training them, place that against the cost of creating a jet equipped with this system and maintaining it (I'll wave the astronomical costs of R&D for such a device if you'll waive the costs of replacing said soldiers every few years.) The ends do not fit the means. Simply put the tiny fraction of pilots we would spare from the comparitively safe job of cargo hauling to place in the exceedingly dangerous infantry positions do not add up to any gains.

"Conventional weapons will destroy the facilties being worked on, but will it destroy the WMDs completely? " Depends on the weapon used of course. The vaunted "daisy cutters" would do the trick nicely. Chemical and Biological weapons also have storage problems, they tend to be rendered useless if improperly stored. I daresay a giant hole in their storage facility would be improper.

Nuking nukes to prevent nukes from spreading fallout. You do realize that small-nukes carry heavy enviornmental burdens as well as their full-size cousins right? Even those proposing the small-nuke give it a mission-profile of being used against hardened, underground targets. Thus limiting its air-based fallout, however it neglects the almost certain contamination of soil and groundwater (if any) that is in the area.

Nukes, no matter how small, are gonna do LASTING damage. There is no such thing right now (or under development) that could be labeled a clean-nuke; one that would not poison the surrounding area.

Nuke's inherant limitations aside, you mention conventional weapons as if they are somehow unequal to the targets mentioned. There is no such indication of this. We have many bombs that are designed for bunker-busting, those that have penetration and incineration capability. Simply put, what you are proposing to do with nukes is already being done with conventional warheads! There is no reason to make something that fufills the same mission-profile as our conventional weapons.

Look closely at the Afganistan conflict, study what after-action reports and such that are available to civilians. The US ran into the nasty task of attacking a hardened cave complex in the mountains of Tora Bora as well as other difficult targets. The main problem was locating the target caves to hit, not getting sufficient power to knock them out. Our attack capabilites are sufficient, and the commanders on the ground had no grumblings that I could find about insufficient fire power from the sky. The lack of good intelligence was the key factor...perhaps some C-10 pilots would be useful over there? (I apologize, a cheap shot)
The cargo planes were really just an example. There are other planes that I don't feel need to be manned, like tankers. The enemy will always realize that without these planes, our military would struggle to exist. That's why they've been fired on entering Baghdad Intl. At the very least, let's put as few soldiers in harm's way as possible. I'd hate for anyone to suffer the fate of a plane crash.
As for nukes, of course they'll ultimatly do the same job that conventional bombs can do. But consider this: a few, well-placed incendiary bombs could've had the same effect on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or if we really wanted to, we could probably figure out how to deliver large incendiary bombs in a matter of months. They are sometimes even more destructive as nukes.
The difference with nukes are two-fold. For one, it naturally inspires fear in enemies. That's why terrorists and rogue nations are so concerend about developing nukes, rather than potent conventional weapons. And second, they gurantee that an area isn't usuable for years, ever. Mini nukes, however, produce less radiation, as they split atoms in less objects. Thus, radioactive fallout will be more of an irritant if anything. The worst it can do in a remote area is something like the Three Mile Island accident. It made for some good media coverage, but it was really a hyped up incident. If an urban area, it may cause something like genectic diseases or even cancer years down the road, but only to those very close to the detonation will get "atom sickness". It'll be a nice detterant, better than conventional weapons.
And btw, I admit that the idea of a little nuke destroying a big nuke was far-fetched. But, I guess it'd work fine if the nuke wasn't fully assembled.

The cargo planes were really just an example. There are other planes that I don't feel need to be manned, like tankers. The enemy will always realize that without these planes, our military would struggle to exist. That's why they've been fired on entering Baghdad Intl. At the very least, let's put as few soldiers in harm's way as possible. I'd hate for anyone to suffer the fate of a plane crash.

As for nukes, of course they'll ultimatly do the same job that conventional bombs can do. But consider this: a few, well-placed incendiary bombs could've had the same effect on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or if we really wanted to, we could probably figure out how to deliver large incendiary bombs in a matter of months. They are sometimes even more destructive as nukes.

The difference with nukes are two-fold. For one, it naturally inspires fear in enemies. That's why terrorists and rogue nations are so concerend about developing nukes, rather than potent conventional weapons. And second, they gurantee that an area isn't usuable for years, ever. Mini nukes, however, produce less radiation, as they split atoms in less objects. Thus, radioactive fallout will be more of an irritant if anything. The worst it can do in a remote area is something like the Three Mile Island accident. It made for some good media coverage, but it was really a hyped up incident. If an urban area, it may cause something like genectic diseases or even cancer years down the road, but only to those very close to the detonation will get "atom sickness". It'll be a nice detterant, better than conventional weapons.

And btw, I admit that the idea of a little nuke destroying a big nuke was far-fetched. But, I guess it'd work fine if the nuke wasn't fully assembled.

Hrm...Again, the saving of a soldier from the horrors of a plane crash to place them in the horrors of urban combat somehow fails to strike me as a worthwhile transition.

Your arguments of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remind me of a very important point. The Japanese did not surrender because of the bombs dropped on those two cities; we know this because in high level cabinet meetings the main view of hardliners was that death by A-bomb and death by firebomb is still only death. Our terrorist foes now have the same extremist mentality correct? Their blind acceptance of death in suicide attacks like 9/11 seems to indicate that.

These mini-nukes will, as I have stated previously, will inspire fear in our allies. The US's enemies will jump on these weapons (as they have in the past; there were claims that we used bunker-busting nukes in the first gulf war by Islamic militant groups) and turn it into a massive public relations coup.

I apologize, but I fail to understand your assertion that a mini-nuke is somehow clean; or even slightly less damaging to the area as their larger brethren. I have seen nothing to indicate this, no reports from the mini-nuke advocates tell of this attribute. Can I assume that this assertion is based on some source you have seen?

Remember the Radiological bomb scares of the past few years? These "dirty" bombs are unlikely to have the same power as the proposed mini-nukes, but their contamination capabilities are considered highly dangerous. Even taking into account some sort of enviornmental safeguard that could be included in a mini-nuke the enviornmental damage is likely to be severe.

Remember the mission profile of our mini-nukes again; they are going to be used against hardened targets. Most likely in unpopulated areas, on terrorist facilities or other illegal bases held by nations with sanctions on them; whereby deterrance is unlikely to be a factor. You cannot deter a group of death-commited people with a slightly more irritating form of death can you?

I'll try to break this down in another way:
Full-size nukes
Positive attributes- Exccedingly High destructive power, deterrance factor

Negitive attributes- Land-denial to any occupying power, enviornmental damage, vast negative reaction from international community, risk of escalation of conflict, High cost of production/matinence/security.

Mini-nukes
Positive attributes- Possible deterrance factor

Negitive attributes- Equal Destructive power to conventional weapons, possible land-denial to occupying power, enviornmental damage, vast negative reaction from international community, risk of escalation of conflict, high cost of production/matinence/security.

Conventional Weapons
Positive attributes- Flexible destructive power, comparitively low cost/matinence/security, minimal lasting enviornmental damage/international outcry/risk of conflict escalation.

Negitive attibutes- No deterrance factor beyond standard threat of horrible burning death. Destructive power limited compared to full-size nukes.

This breaks down the positive/negitive aspects of the weapons we've been discussing in my view. As I see it, mini-nukes give negligable benifits for tremendous cost. Dollars better used to expand and improve our conventional weapons with money to spare.

...the Commandant of the Marine Corps had to go before Congress and tell them flat out he could not accomplish the mission assigned to the Corps with numbers that low, deployments would go from 6 months to 9 months, he would lose people and further inhibit combat capabilities...luckily we escaped the axe that time...

Was that the year General Krulak said [and I'm paraphrasing here], "...with the United States Marine Corps, our nation gets 15% of its firepower with only 5% of its military budget."

When did you serve Salishe or are you still serving? Where and what MOS? Maybe our paths have crossed pretty close (active '89-99 1st LAI Bn/LAV Mechanic & 9th Comm. Bn/Electronics Technician) :D

Fraid our paths would not have passed...well..maybe they might have, or at the very least our units may have crossed...I was 0311 1966-1970 9th Marine Regiment, Republic of South Vietnam, Camp Pendleton. 1970-1974 Marine Detachment USS Enterprise, 1975-1978 2nd Recruit Training Battalion, MCRD Parris Island, 1979 - 1983 8th Marine Regiment Camp Lejuene, 1983-1986 US State Dept Marine Security Guard Battalion, Quantico VA, retired....reactivated 1990-1991 For service with 1st MarDiv Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, released from active service back to retirement...left my legacy to my sons who even now are currently serving in the Marine Corps, one who enlisted prior to 9/11/01, the second afterward.

Wow! They may have crossed (at least real estate wise) during Desert Shield/Desert Storm because we belonged to the 1st MarDiv - I spent "Shield" at Manifa Bay and "Storm" up at a place we called "Q-Town" which was 3 clicks from the border.

Did you remain an 03xx and if so did you stay enlisted or did you later become an officer?

When you were at Parris Island, were you in a support role or were you a "Hat"?

I remained at 0311....loved it...fulfilled a tribal affiliation of mine. I am AniWahya, that is Clan Wolf of the Cherokee Nation Eastern Band...some of us still follow our tribal affiliation..AniWahya is the Clan that provided warriors in time of war and Peace Chiefs afterwards...My family have served since the time of Andrew Jackson's removal of the majority of my people to Oklahoma. Stayed Enlisted...what..you thought I'd be a Zero? Ughhh...perish the thought....not political enough to be a Zero.

I was a "Hat" at Parris Island...Drill Instructor for "Echo" Company.

The cargo planes were really just an example. There are other planes that I don't feel need to be manned, like tankers. The enemy will always realize that without these planes, our military would struggle to exist. That's why they've been fired on entering Baghdad Intl. At the very least, let's put as few soldiers in harm's way as possible. I'd hate for anyone to suffer the fate of a plane crash.

As for nukes, of course they'll ultimatly do the same job that conventional bombs can do. But consider this: a few, well-placed incendiary bombs could've had the same effect on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or if we really wanted to, we could probably figure out how to deliver large incendiary bombs in a matter of months. They are sometimes even more destructive as nukes.

The difference with nukes are two-fold. For one, it naturally inspires fear in enemies. That's why terrorists and rogue nations are so concerend about developing nukes, rather than potent conventional weapons. And second, they gurantee that an area isn't usuable for years, ever. Mini nukes, however, produce less radiation, as they split atoms in less objects. Thus, radioactive fallout will be more of an irritant if anything. The worst it can do in a remote area is something like the Three Mile Island accident. It made for some good media coverage, but it was really a hyped up incident. If an urban area, it may cause something like genectic diseases or even cancer years down the road, but only to those very close to the detonation will get "atom sickness". It'll be a nice detterant, better than conventional weapons.

And btw, I admit that the idea of a little nuke destroying a big nuke was far-fetched. But, I guess it'd work fine if the nuke wasn't fully assembled.

Hrm...Again, the saving of a soldier from the horrors of a plane crash to place them in the horrors of urban combat somehow fails to strike me as a worthwhile transition.

Your arguments of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remind me of a very important point. The Japanese did not surrender because of the bombs dropped on those two cities; we know this because in high level cabinet meetings the main view of hardliners was that death by A-bomb and death by firebomb is still only death. Our terrorist foes now have the same extremist mentality correct? Their blind acceptance of death in suicide attacks like 9/11 seems to indicate that.

These mini-nukes will, as I have stated previously, will inspire fear in our allies. The US's enemies will jump on these weapons (as they have in the past; there were claims that we used bunker-busting nukes in the first gulf war by Islamic militant groups) and turn it into a massive public relations coup.

I apologize, but I fail to understand your assertion that a mini-nuke is somehow clean; or even slightly less damaging to the area as their larger brethren. I have seen nothing to indicate this, no reports from the mini-nuke advocates tell of this attribute. Can I assume that this assertion is based on some source you have seen?

Remember the Radiological bomb scares of the past few years? These "dirty" bombs are unlikely to have the same power as the proposed mini-nukes, but their contamination capabilities are considered highly dangerous. Even taking into account some sort of enviornmental safeguard that could be included in a mini-nuke the enviornmental damage is likely to be severe.

Remember the mission profile of our mini-nukes again; they are going to be used against hardened targets. Most likely in unpopulated areas, on terrorist facilities or other illegal bases held by nations with sanctions on them; whereby deterrance is unlikely to be a factor. You cannot deter a group of death-commited people with a slightly more irritating form of death can you?

I'll try to break this down in another way:
Full-size nukes
Positive attributes- Exccedingly High destructive power, deterrance factor

Negitive attributes- Land-denial to any occupying power, enviornmental damage, vast negative reaction from international community, risk of escalation of conflict, High cost of production/matinence/security.

Mini-nukes
Positive attributes- Possible deterrance factor

Negitive attributes- Equal Destructive power to conventional weapons, possible land-denial to occupying power, enviornmental damage, vast negative reaction from international community, risk of escalation of conflict, high cost of production/matinence/security.

Conventional Weapons
Positive attributes- Flexible destructive power, comparitively low cost/matinence/security, minimal lasting enviornmental damage/international outcry/risk of conflict escalation.

Negitive attibutes- No deterrance factor beyond standard threat of horrible burning death. Destructive power limited compared to full-size nukes.

This breaks down the positive/negitive aspects of the weapons we've been discussing in my view. As I see it, mini-nukes give negligable benifits for tremendous cost. Dollars better used to expand and improve our conventional weapons with money to spare.
Let's drop the UAV cargo planes debate. Obviously, that's getting nowhere.
Anyhow, you're convincing me about the redundancy of a mini-nuke. However, I fail to see how it would anger our allies? If it can do the same as a conventional weapon, as you say it will, then shouldn't our allies be equally worried about mini nukes? And if they are worried about the fallout, why aren't they outraged about our a-bombs and tactical nukes? After all, they have the same effect. Some of our allies even have a few of their own.

Let's drop the UAV cargo planes debate. Obviously, that's getting nowhere.

Anyhow, you're convincing me about the redundancy of a mini-nuke.

However, I fail to see how it would anger our allies? If it can do the same as a conventional weapon, as you say it will, then shouldn't our allies be equally worried about mini nukes? And if they are worried about the fallout, why aren't they outraged about our a-bombs and tactical nukes? After all, they have the same effect. Some of our allies even have a few of their own.

Our allies have not expressed much worry about it that have seen, its true; they've been busy dealing with current issues and events. If this mini-nuke plan gets approved, then we'll start hearing some noise.

We currently don't have any nuke warheads small enough to be considered tactical in nature that I have knowledge of. We do have a massive strategic arsenal that, as you know, is under constant pressure to be disarmed or reduced. The call for such things is so old that one rarely hears about it on the news.

The last big spikes in uproar was the missle defense shield that called attention to the SALT treaties that the US didn't follow through on as well as some of the other missle-related treaties. The Bush admin caught a lot of flak from the international community about that in the first year of the presidency.

The contradiction of nukes is that in theory they are always available but in practice they must never be used. The outrage comes every time there is a hint or accusation of our using one, it springs up in the news, gets disproven or shoved under the carpet and the uproar dies down again.

I'll reiterate my main point. The reasons we aren't being screamed at by our allies is that a) there are bigger issues currently being delt with and b) the mini-nuke is still only a theoretical device as far as we know. The minute we use one we'll hear about it.