Science meets Bush politics

The US Senate approved the 2005 Defense Authorization Act defense spending bill for research of new nuclear weapons: $33.6 million for studies of low-yield and “bunker buster” nuclear weapons. These five kiloton nuclear weapons are about half the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. It also approved a Bush administration request to shorten the time required to prepare for a full-scale nuclear test from 24 months to 18 months.

The Bush administration says research into these new nuclear weapons will make the nation's nuclear arsenal into a more effective deterrent. [Deterency works after all.]
The administration argues that these kinds of weapons could reduce the potential for causing civilian casualties and could improve the effectiveness of nuclear weapons in destroying deeply buried and hardened targets.

Critics are concerned that the Bush administration’s plan blurs the line between the use of nuclear and conventional weapons and could undermine the international effort to contain the world's development of nuclear weapons. California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, said “We are telling other countries, do not do what we do, do what we say. We are practicing the ultimate hypocrisy.”

A nuclear weapon exploded just beneath the Earth's surface would create a massive crater and would throw more radioactive dirt and particles into the air than one detonated above the target, according to Sidney Drell, a nuclear physicist with Stanford University. For fallout to be contained, even a 0.5 kiloton nuclear weapon would have to penetrate at least 150 feet into the Earth in order for fallout to be contained.
But there is no known material that could be used to encase a bomb that could penetrate more than 50 feet, Drell said, “even if we slam them in at supersonic speeds.”
Extracted from Environment News Service

The Union of Concerned Scientists is running a letter-writing campaign to pressue Congress to support the Climate Stewardship Act (CSA), first introduced by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) in Jan/03. In Oct it came to the floor and recieved only 43 votes.
The CSA calls for a reduction in emissions of heat-trapping gases to 2000 levels by the year 2010. To achieve this reduction at the lowest possible cost, the bill creates a market-based system of tradable allowances. This market-based system was based on the successful system of sulfur dioxide emission permits created under the 1990 Clean Air Act.
A version of the Climate Stewardship Act (CSA), H 4067, was introduced to the House of Representatives on March 30, 2004. While a House vote is highly unlikely during the current congress, the bipartisan group of representatives introduced the CSA to raise the visibility of the climate issue and increase support for responsible action on climate change among members of the House.
Visit the Union of Concerned Scientists website to learn more about this legislation and write your representatives. Their organization has published an Investigation into the Bush Administration's misuse of science, a very worthwhile read, called Scientific Integrity in Policymaking.