Obama pledged to reduce nuclear arsenal, then came this weapon

[bluedigger]

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – Standing next to a 12-foot nuclear bomb that looks more like a trim missile than a weapon of mass destruction, engineer Phil Hoover exudes pride. “I feel a real sense of accomplishment,” he said.

But as Hoover knows, looks can be deceiving. He and fellow engineers at Sandia National Laboratories have spent the past few years designing, building and testing the top-secret electronic and mechanical innards of the sophisticated B61-12.

Later, when nuclear explosives are added at the federal Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas, the bomb will have a maximum explosive force equivalent to 50,000 tons of TNT – more than three times more powerful than the U.S. atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, 70 years ago this August that killed more than 130,000 people.

The U.S. government doesn’t consider the B61-12 to be new – simply an upgrade of an existing weapon. But some contend that it is far more than that.

https://www.revealnews.org/article/new-mexico-thrives-on-nuclear-bomb-despite-us-pledge-to-reduce-arsenal/

[hack89]

1. That both President Bush's cut more nuclear warheads than all Dem presidents combined

is an ironic twist. I think it stems from Dem fears of being seen as weak on defense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/sunday-review/which-president-cut-the-most-nukes.html?_r=0

[Igel]

3. We see what we want.

He also increased funding for HIV and birth control in Africa, and had the first dedicated HESC-research funding and increased stem-cell funding overall. The HESC funding actually amounted to a large increase in funding, since the NIH and others were leery of funding stem-cell lines that might run afoul of policy or politics.

What we "saw" was that the birth control funding in Africa, never even at 50% of what was needed, shifted money away from abortion providers; and that HESC lines that could receive Federal funding were limited.

We like our good guys to be all good, nice to small children and the needy, and wearing white hats. We like our bad guys to be all bad, nasty to small children and the needy, and wearing black hats. It confuses us esp. when our bad guys aren't all bad, when they're nice to small children but not to all the needy, and their hats are cow colored. We whitewash our good guys, in the same way: Ted Kennedy was a big supporter of NCLB and it was overwhelmingly supported by both parties, but when "we" talk about NCLB's history Ted Kennedy vanishes, it's all Bush I, and we tend to think that it passed on party-line vote. That's the human psyche.

Take Stalin: A really bad character, but he carried candy in his pockets for when he ran across kids--he'd insist on stopping, talking to them, picking them up if they were small, and giving them candy ... While their parents, if there, were in utter terror lest the kid say something amiss that would get them arrested and executed within a month.

[PeoViejo]

2. Variable Yield Nuclear Weapons have been around for a long time.

I don't see what makes this one any more dangerous. Increased accuracy and variable yield are meant to prevent collateral damage. If I were a potential enemy, the thought of this capability might make me rethink any ideas of conflict.

[arcane1]

4. It's apparently OK when we do it