Bush promotes 'nuclear hawks'

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/65fe8ca4-73e9-11d9-b705-00000e2511c8.html

Bush promotes 'nuclear hawks'
By Guy Dinmore in Washington
Published: February 1 2005 00:39 | Last updated: February 1 2005 00:39

A group of hardline officials known as “nuclear hawks” is being promoted in a shake-up of the Bush administration's arms control and non-proliferation teams, according to officials close to the administration.

The latest appointment, announced by President George W. Bush on Monday, saw Jack Crouch, the ambassador to Romania, become deputy national security adviser. Mr Crouch, who served in the Pentagon from 2001 to 2003 as assistant secretary of defence for international security policy, has a long background in arms control. In his Senate confirmation hearing in 2001 he was questioned on his support for US testing of nuclear weapons, his 1995 recommendation for destruction of North Korea's nuclear complexes in the absence of a satisfactory agreement, and the mistake he said was made by George H.W. Bush when president in withdrawing US nuclear weapons from South Korea.

Also entering the National Security Council is John Rood, a senior Pentagon official who replaces Bob Joseph as special adviser. Mr Joseph is expected to move to the State Department to replace John Bolton, undersecretary for arms control.

Mr Bolton had the reputation for being the hawk of hawks in the Bush administration, but one adviser, who asked not to be named, said European governments were naive to believe that his resignation signalled a moderate approach. The promoted officials, he said, had less regard for arms controls and more commitment to building new generations of nuclear weapons and missile defence systems.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/65fe8ca4-73e9-11d9-b705-00000e2511c8.html

nukes for Iran.

the nuke hawks want to use their toys -- after all the brown people over there aren't really humans -- they aren't Christians or anything. These people make me sick. This was the attitude toward Native Americans less than 100 years ago by most whites in the US -- Eugenics exported??

Only rich people are blessed by their god.

The problem was nukes -- sooner or later they will be used. And when religious fanatics have their finger on the launch button -- the probability increases that a "reason" for using nukes will be justified.

this sucks. These jokers don't know their wing tips from their assholes. They are not True Hawks, for they do not feel the winds of the Four Directions. They are Ravens of War -- Ravens of Nuclear War. Batten down the olde sKull and bOnes. A Dark Wind is blowing.

-- If we do not wakefully intend,
we are subconsciously compelled --

http://www.energybulletin.net/4189.html

The hydrogen economy is really a nuclear economy. Investors and the rest of corporate America may not realise how close the country is to making a gigantic bet on a nuclear future. The scientists and engineers at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory have been developing the advanced nuclear technologies that would power the hydrogen world.

Among the designs the INEEL has been working on is the Very High Temperature Reactor, the one best suited to provide the process heat necessary to break hydrogen apart from water so it can be turned into fuel. (There are a few issues with storing hydrogen, but we won't deal with them here.) Among the high temperature reactor variants is the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor being developed here and in China.

I asked Dr Steve Herring of the INEEL how many of these new, relatively efficient reactors would be needed to displace the estimated US fuel import requirements 20 years from now. Based on the Energy Information Administration's estimate of 2025 fuel imports (measured in quads, or quadrillion British thermal units), the output of 300MW per VHTR reactor, and the comparative efficiency of hydrogen fuel compared to gasoline, you come up with a requirement of about 4,000 reactors.

Now these reactors are much smaller than most of the power reactors in operation, but that's still a significant number. However, the US used to have more than 1,000 land-based nuclear ballistic missiles in underground silos. The relatively small VHTR reactors might be housed in underground facilities that wouldn't be much bigger.

Anti-nuclear activists want hydrogen fuel to come from renewable energy sources, such as wind power. However, that arithmetic doesn't work. For example, California has the most developed wind power industry in the US. Its share of those reactors in 2025, based on population, would be about 480. The entire current wind development in California would only account for four reactors' worth of energy for hydrogen production.

These are hair trigger times with well-manicured barbarians holding their fingers on the buttons.
-Phil Berrigan R.I.P.

this would be a good post for the E & E forum.

thats why the hawks!!!

They are seeking to "rule" the global playground like a bunch of freakin' gang members.

The world has had enough of the "gang" mentality (which, fascinatingly, exists in this dysfunctional "western civilization").

Perhaps the neoCONs have waged a war against the best of humanity.

The hydrogen economy is really a nuclear economy. Investors and the rest of corporate America may not realise how close the country is to making a gigantic bet on a nuclear future. The scientists and engineers at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory have been developing the advanced nuclear technologies that would power the hydrogen world.

Among the designs the INEEL has been working on is the Very High Temperature Reactor, the one best suited to provide the process heat necessary to break hydrogen apart from water so it can be turned into fuel. (There are a few issues with storing hydrogen, but we won't deal with them here.) Among the high temperature reactor variants is the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor being developed here and in China.

I asked Dr Steve Herring of the INEEL how many of these new, relatively efficient reactors would be needed to displace the estimated US fuel import requirements 20 years from now. Based on the Energy Information Administration's estimate of 2025 fuel imports (measured in quads, or quadrillion British thermal units), the output of 300MW per VHTR reactor, and the comparative efficiency of hydrogen fuel compared to gasoline, you come up with a requirement of about 4,000 reactors.

Now these reactors are much smaller than most of the power reactors in operation, but that's still a significant number. However, the US used to have more than 1,000 land-based nuclear ballistic missiles in underground silos. The relatively small VHTR reactors might be housed in underground facilities that wouldn't be much bigger.

Anti-nuclear activists want hydrogen fuel to come from renewable energy sources, such as wind power. However, that arithmetic doesn't work. For example, California has the most developed wind power industry in the US. Its share of those reactors in 2025, based on population, would be about 480. The entire current wind development in California would only account for four reactors' worth of energy for hydrogen production.

http://www.energybulletin.net/4189.html

Even Goldwater finally became relatively sane by the end of the Cold War.

Actually, that old right-wing icon has started to sound pretty fucking liberal by comparison, in general. Surreal.

"I would like to see us do away with all nuclear weapons. I just want to make sure they're all gone...Why do we have to go broke and keep so many young people in the military?" - Barry Goldwater

in the same sentence!

...but sometimes they get pretty spooky :tinfoilhat: