Is winning a competition to design a weapon of inconceivable destruction really "winning?"

appalling...

The Bush administration announced yesterday the winner of a competition to design the nation’s first new nuclear weapon in nearly two decades and immediately set out to reassure Russia and China that the weapon, if built, would pose no new threat to either nation.

If President Bush decides to authorize production and Congress agrees, the research could lead to a long, expensive process to replace all American nuclear warheads in the next few decades with new designs.

why are we doing this when...?

The potentially expensive initiative faces an uncertain future and has generated much criticism from skeptics who argue that a new design for the nuclear arsenal is unneeded and is a potential stimulus to a global nuclear arms race.

“This is a solution in search of a problem,” said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a group in Washington.

and...

[Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California] cited a report in December saying plutonium pits have a lifespan of at least 85 years, leading critics to question whether the new weapons are necessary.

here we are, well into the 21st century, still building obscene weapons of incomprehensible destructive power, and we characterize the group chosen to create a new design as "winners..." how obscene is THAT...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet