Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

  • Issues
    • Weekly Column
    • Counterfeit Reactor Parts
    • Depleted Uranium
    • Direct Action
    • Lake Superior Barrels
    • Environmental Justice
    • Nuclear Power
      • Chernobyl
      • Fukushima
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • On The Bright Side
    • Radiation Exposure
    • Radioactive Waste
    • Renewable Energy
    • Uranium Mining
    • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Newsletter Archives
  • Resources
    • Nuclear Heartland Book
    • Fact Sheets
    • Reports, Studies & Publications
      • The New Nuclear Weapons: $1.74 Trillion for H-bomb Profiteers and Fake Cleanups
      • Nuclear Power: Dead In the Water It Poisoned
      • Thorium Fuel’s Advantages as Mythical as Thor
      • Greenpeace on Fukushima 2016
      • Drinking Water at Risk: Toxic Military Wastes Haunt Lake Superior
    • Nukewatch in the News
    • Links
    • Videos
  • About
    • About Nukewatch
    • Contact Us
  • Get Involved
    • Action Alerts!
    • Calendar
    • Workshops
  • Donate

July 3, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Trying to Kill a New Nuclear Missile

Summer Quarterly 2018
Nuclear Shorts

Several Democrats in Congress tried to cancel the Long Range Stand-Off missile (LRSO), a so-called “low-yield” nuclear weapon estimated by the Government Accounting Office to cost at least $30 billion. “We are inalterably opposed to it,” Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., told reporters. “Talk of ‘low-yield’ H-bombs makes people start calculating: ‘… maybe we’ll have a small nuclear exchange and that will be OK,’” Smith said, “but our deterrence policy has to be: ‘No nukes under any circumstances.’” Former Sec. of Defense William Perry has rejected the LRSO earlier, writing in the Washington Post, “The US does not need to arm its bombers with a new generation of nuclear-armed cruise missiles,” and demanding, “Mr. President, kill the new cruise missile.” Rep. Smith has also sponsored a bill requiring a nuclear no-first-use policy which is stuck in committee (H.R.669 of 2017). Likewise, California Sen. Diane Feinstein, ranking Democrat on the Senate Sub-committee on Energy and Water Development, voiced opposition to a $65 million appropriation for a new so-called “low-yield” sea-launched nuclear missile. “I cannot support a new nuclear weapon,” she said. “Quite frankly, I don’t believe there’s anything such as a limited nuclear war. I don’t see any reason to develop new low-yield weapons. Once a nuclear weapon is used, by any country against any target, I believe it’s Armageddon, and it’s the end of us.” —Defense News online, May 23 & 24, 2018; New York Times, Sept. 30, 2016; Washington Post, Oct. 15, 2015

Filed Under: Military Spending, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Subscribe

Donate

Facebook

Categories

  • B61 Bombs in Europe
  • Chernobyl
  • Counterfeit Reactor Parts
  • Depleted Uranium
  • Direct Action
  • Environment
  • Environmental Justice
  • Fukushima
  • Lake Superior Barrels
  • Military Spending
  • Newsletter Archives
  • North Korea
  • Nuclear Power
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Office News
  • On The Bright Side
  • Photo Gallery
  • Quarterly Newsletter
  • Radiation Exposure
  • Radioactive Waste
  • Renewable Energy
  • Sulfide Mining
  • Through the Prism of Nonviolence
  • Uncategorized
  • Uranium Mining
  • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • War
  • Weekly Column

Contact Us

(715) 472-4185
nukewatch1@lakeland.ws

Address:
740A Round Lake Road
Luck, Wisconsin 54853
USA

Donate To Nukewatch

News & Information on Nuclear Weapons,
Power, Waste & Nonviolent Resistance

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

© 2023 · Nukewatch