US attempts to upgrade nuclear arsenal

From The Washington Post:

The selection of a basic design for what could become a new generation of U.S. nuclear warheads has drawn immediate opposition from some key members of Congress.

The National Nuclear Security Administration announced on Friday that it had selected a design by the California-based Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). It would be the first of a new generation of secure and reliable nuclear warheads initially intended for the Navy's submarine-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Within the next 12 months, a team from Livermore and the Navy is to put together cost estimates and an engineering and production plan that would be presented to Congress next year for approval, according to acting NNSA Administrator Thomas P. D'Agostino.

Why do they want to build a new generation of nuclear warhead?

D'Agostino told reporters on Friday that the RRW "is not about starting a new nuclear arms race." He said the program would use a warhead design that was tested in the 1980s but package it with new features, such as insensitive high explosives less liable to explode by accident, as well as locking devices that would prevent the warhead from being used if it fell into the hands of terrorists.

Sounds pretty good, right? Well not to everyone:

Rep. Peter J. Visclosky (D-Ind.), the new chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that controls the funds for the nuclear weapons complex, has sharply questioned why a new warhead is needed. Saying the NNSA announcement "puts the cart before the horse," he called on the Bush administration to present a "clear, coherent national policy" to justify the new warhead.

Visclosky said he plans to hold oversight hearings and may seek to slow or eliminate the RRW if the administration does not present a strategy "that defines the future mission, the emerging threats, and the specific U.S. nuclear stockpile necessary to achieve the strategic goals."

Is it just me or doesn't "more reliable", "less likely to explode by accident" and "harder for terrorists to use if they obtained one" sound like damn good reasons?

Of course no example of Democrat moonbattery would be complete without the queen of the Senate's moonbats getting the chance to bloviate:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a longtime opponent of new nuclear weapons, has declared that she is "100 percent opposed" to building the RRW. A member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that funds the nuclear complex, she said in a statement: "While I appreciate the fact that Lawrence Livermore was selected, this in no way answers my questions about the Reliable Replacement Warhead program."

She questioned how other countries would view the U.S. effort to develop new nuclear weapons at the same time that the United States is pushing Iran, North Korea and other countries to drop nuclear weapons programs. "What worries me is that the minute you begin to put more sophisticated warheads on the existing fleet, you are essentially creating a new nuclear weapon. And it's just a matter of time before other nations do the same thing," she said.

I guess Feinstein is too stupid to figure out the difference between a rogue state like North Korea or Iran building nuclear arms when it did not possess them before and a responsible free nation like the US upgrading its already existing nuclear arsenal.

This is another demonstration of why Democrats should not be trusted with power.