Radioactivity

(Suggestion: Click "play" & read the following article while soothed by Kraftwerk)

The New York Times recently reported:

The Bush administration is expected to announce next week a major step forward in the building of the country’s first new nuclear warhead in nearly two decades. It will propose combining elements of competing designs from two weapons laboratories in an approach that some experts argue is untested and risky.

[snip]

If Mr. Bush decides to deploy the new design, he could touch off a debate in a Democrat-controlled Congress and among allies and adversaries abroad, who have opposed efforts to modernize the arsenal in the past. While proponents of the new weapon said that it would replace older weapons that could deteriorate over time, and reduce the chances of a detonation if weapons fell into the wrong hands, critics have long argued that this is the wrong moment for Washington to produce a new nuclear warhead of any kind.

At a time when the administration is trying to convince the world to put sanctions on North Korea and Iran to halt their nuclear programs, those critics argue, any move to improve the American arsenal will be seen as hypocritical, an effort by the United States to extend its nuclear lead over other countries. Should the United States decide to conduct a test, officials said, China and Russia — which have their own nuclear modernization programs under way — would feel free to do the same. North Korea was sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council for conducting its first test on Oct. 9, and it may be preparing for more, experts said.

My favorite part? Nope! Not that we may be seen as hypocritical in the face of our stated goal (and urgent need) to minimize nuclear proliferation; rather, the reassurance provided by the weapon's name: "Reliable Replacement Warhead"

Now that's effective marketing!

UPDATE: The Union of Concerned Scientists has a petition you should sign in response to this proposal. The petition also suggests a different way to move forward:

The current Complex 2030 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is too limited. The EIS should include assessment of an alternative that would abandon plans to build new nuclear weapons, make deep reductions in the U.S. nuclear stockpile, and consolidate existing nuclear weapons facilities to the greatest extent possible.

Under this option, managing the U.S. nuclear stockpile will be more efficient, less costly, and more consistent with the goal of reducing U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons.

Also, as part of the review, the Department of Energy should prepare a nonproliferation impact assessment of Complex 2030 to determine how the plan would affect the U.S. goal of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, and whether the project is consistent with U.S. treaty obligations to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Again, your John Hancock goes here.