And it's not Plutonium Page they will be making. The NYT, in a
piece to be published tomorrow, reports:
The Bush administration is planning the government's first production of plutonium 238 - a highly radioactive substance valued as a power source - since the Cold War, stirring debate over the risks and benefits of the deadly material. It is hot enough to melt plastic and so dangerous that a speck can cause cancer.
Federal officials say the program would produce a total of 330 pounds, or 150 kilograms, over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory, a sprawling site outside Idaho Falls some 100 miles, or 160 kilometers, to the west and upwind of Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. The program could cost $1.5 billion and generate more than 50,000 drums of hazardous and radioactive waste.
This sounds like a disaster on multiple planes, especially when you consider this in tandem with the recently revised Conplan 8022....
"The real reason we're starting production is for national security," Timothy Frazier, head of radioisotope power systems at the Department of Energy, said at the end of a recent interview.
He vigorously denied that any of the classified missions would involve nuclear arms, satellites or weapons in space.
---
Plutonium 238 has no central role in nuclear arms. Instead, it is valued for its steady heat, which can be turned into electricity.
What is happening here? Is it a move toward energy independence, a switch to nukular energy? Somebody help me: can Plutonium 238 be used in nukular arms?
And then there's Conplan 8022:
This blurring of the nuclear/conventional line, wittingly or unwittingly, could heighten the risk that the nuclear option will be used. Exhibit A may be the Stratcom contingency plan for dealing with "imminent" threats from countries such as North Korea or Iran, formally known as CONPLAN 8022-02.
CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posits a small-scale operation and no "boots on the ground." The typical war plan encompasses an amalgam of forces -- air, ground, sea -- and takes into account the logistics and political dimensions needed to sustain those forces in protracted operations. All these elements generally require significant lead time to be effective. (Existing Pentagon war plans, developed for specific regions or "theaters," are essentially defensive responses to invasions or attacks. The global strike plan is offensive, triggered by the perception of an imminent threat and carried out by presidential order.)
---
The inclusion, therefore, of a nuclear weapons option in CONPLAN 8022 -- a specially configured earth-penetrating bomb to destroy deeply buried facilities, if any exist -- is particularly disconcerting. The global strike plan holds the nuclear option in reserve if intelligence suggests an "imminent" launch of an enemy nuclear strike on the United States or if there is a need to destroy hard-to-reach targets.
You mean like the one that Iraq was preparing to launch on the US?
The sociopaths are mucking around in the atomic storehouse. Regardles of their intent, be it preemptive nuclear attack, hastening of the armageddon or the propogation of nuclear energy in the US, this bodes ill for all of us. Their track record in long term decision making, at least in decisions that actually benefit people, does not show that they work towards the greater good. I'm not decrying nuclear energy, but we definitely need better waste disposal solutions. Until then, I can't get behind them. Preemptive nuclear strikes will only bring on a retalitory strike on the US; maybe not right away, but it will happen. Does every generation feel like they are witnessing the end?