Nuclear and Nonnuclear Missiles Were Stored in Same Bunker, Lawmaker Says

The investigation unfolds as to how six nuclear-armed AGM-129 missiles were loaded onto a B-52 bomber and flown across the continent.

The six warheads each had an explosive power of more than 10 Hiroshima atomic bombs.

An Air Force decision to store nuclear-armed cruise missiles in the same North Dakota bunker as missiles containing dummy warheads played a key role in the unrecognized transport of six nuclear devices from North Dakota to Louisiana last month, according to the head of a congressional oversight committee.

Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic weapons, said the decision “created a mistake waiting to happen.”

“You can’t leave them in the same facility [as missiles with nuclear warheads] and expect people to tell the difference, . . . not from five feet away,” she said.

My recommendation; day-glo paint on all nuclear weapons that say “Danger! I’ll destroy the world and everything you love! Use with extreme caution!”.  Maybe then the difference will be easier to tell.

The most important person in the flight crew, she said, was the one assigned to look through a 5/8th -inch hole in each missile to determine whether the warhead inside was a dummy or a nuclear one.
Referring to the series of errors, Tauscher said: “We are lucky it didn’t happen before.”

Yes. We are so lucky that we’ve not let careless people and poor inventory skills create situations where we’ve allowed nukes to fly over our heads before. I’ve know people to be fired from the local grocery store for lessor inventory offenses.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Dems can’t make guarantee on Iraq troops

This is where that sinking feeling in your stomach finally hits:

The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

Here are what the leading Dem hopefuls said:

Sen. Barack Obama: “I think it’s hard to project four years from now.

Sen. Hillary Clinton: “It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting.”

John Edwards: “I cannot make that commitment.”

Perhaps we’re asking for a miracle by requesting a complete pullout of American troops immediately. Maybe hearing logic and a smidgen of honesty from these candidates is what’s most shocking. Either way, I seem to recall this question being asked in the recent past but receiving a completely opposite answer by these candidates. Can anyone confirm that?

Popularity: 3% [?]

Here’s a clip showing a portion of Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia University, New York.

I suppose when being faced with absolute ignorance, all we can do is just laugh. Actually, I think the crowd’s response is better describe as “busting a gut” or the ever popular instant messaging acronym “LMAO”.

Crack open a beer and enjoy a glimpse of Iranian logic:

Popularity: 2% [?]

Persian spat at U.N.

When Ahmadinejad was ushered to the podium of the General Assembly to speak, the U.S. delegation walked out, leaving only a low-ranking note-taker to listen to his speech.

Snub Number one.

The Iranian president spoke hours after two European leaders spoke against him. French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned the assembly that allowing Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons would be an ”unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world.”

A risk to stability in the region? If by stability you mean none of the Middle Eastern countries are currently blowing each other up, then sure.

Ahmadinejad has defied two Security Council resolutions demanding Iran — known formerly as Persia — suspend enrichment and imposing escalating sanctions. He made clear in his speech that Iran did not intend to comply with them now.

”In the last two years, abusing the Security Council, the arrogant powers have repeatedly accused Iran and even made military threats and imposed illegal sanctions against it,” he said.

Arrogant is as arrogant does.

President Bush also spoke to the U.N., announcing new sanctions against the military dictatorship in Myanmar. Ahmadinejad sat in the chamber and checked his watch during Bush’s remarks.

The Prez blatantly focused his speech on all things NOT relating to Ahmadinejad. Ouch! That stings!

And the snub of all snubs:

First lady Laura Bush, also present for the president’s speech, walked right by the seated Iranian president.

Oh no. Not the cold shoulder from the first lady! That’ll really show him we mean business. Makes you miss high school doesn’t it?

Popularity: 3% [?]

I think the cat’s out of the bag, Israel.

The Jewish State has long denied their possession of nuclear weapons even though it’s generally acknowledge that they do exist. Further confirmation comes with Israel lobbying to expand its suppliers to a pending U.S.-India deal

Israel is looking to a U.S.-India nuclear deal to expand its own ties to suppliers, quietly lobbying for an exemption to non-proliferation rules so it can legally import atomic material, according to documents made available Tuesday to The Associated Press.

Besides India, only Pakistan and North Korea are known to have nuclear weapons and be outside the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Israel is considered an undeclared weapons state, with a doctrine of “nuclear ambiguity.”

Besides the fact that it’s becoming a farce that Israel continues to consider itself nuclear-ly ambiguous, a move like this will bring about a new level of non-nuclear Arab nation incoherent rage. Never under estimate the irrationality of a green eyed monster.

And the last thing I want to see is our little gem in the desert threatened even more by her neighbors.

But alas:

Israeli papers were “acknowledged but definitely not embraced” by the NSG member nations.

I doubt the deal will turn out any (legal) suppliers to our sister country. If they thought it had the slightest chance of succeeding, I doubt we’d be reading about it in the news.

Popularity: 2% [?]