I've been worrying about the peculiar signing statement for HR 5631, the 2007 Department of Defense Appropriations bill.
Andy Foland asks why the executive needs emergency exception for research
To cut a long story short, and I Am Not A Lawyer, I read the signing statement as a claim that the purported "unitary executive" can:
1) ignore Boland Amendment like restrictions on DoD funding after the appropriations bill is signed
2) initiate new classified actions without clearing it with Congress (claims consultation with Congress is courtesy, not mandatory)
3) and, can initiate new purchases, procurement or development without clearing with Congress
I'd been focused on 1) and its implications for striking Iran over an attempt by Congress to block it through appropriations, but, Andy asks what is the urgency with new R&D programs?
One possible answer, were one to speculate wildly, is that a new Nuclear Bunker Buster program was started as a crash priority, without notifying Congress, after the old RNEP program was defunded.
I note that Wiki points to a Jane's speculation that there is in fact a new R&D program underway.
The question then is: why would you need an urgent new development program this fiscal year, and would Congress in fact have been notified?
Not that I'm paranoid or anything...
Anyone know if Sweden is hiring?
- Log in to post comments
Steinn - Along a similar vein, what is with the incistence on building low-yield nukes for use against hardened targets? The warhead cannot to penetrate deep enough for the desired effect and since the ground would not contain the entire explosion, large quantities of radioactive material would be release into the environment as aerosols. We have already seen what depleted uranium munitions does to those living around a battlefield, and that is using 200 to 1 238/235 ratio. Does the Pentagon really think that munitions using 80% 235 is going to be less hazardous?
This program has the same hollow ring as Star Wars and the stupid missle shield still in production. "Technology will save us all!" Remember, we are an empire now, so we create our own reality.
Bad quality control on classified ideas.
Especially with the JASON group essentially out of the picture.
Maybe they're going to use Hafnium warheads ;-)
Oh, I forgot to answer:
"BIG BOOM" - cool!
I can understand the "Big Boom Cool" from a highschool chemistry class or even from the weapons designers. But that attitude in a policy portfolio is crazy scary.
I imagine that the continued push for this weapons system is partly fueled by the feeling that those of technical expertise who have argued against it, have alligned themselves with the Right's political enemies. And one must merely work around ones or drive over one's enemies, not listen to them.
Thats enough armchair psychologizing for one day.
Ok, seriously: there has always been a tendency in the weapons design crowd, as far as I can tell, to push for more bang - it is innate, you spend your life figuring out how to make things go bang, it is only natural to want to see it done. That is not trivializing the issue.
The actual political decision to develop and procure the new toys should be made independent of the tendency (although there is always pressure from below).
Sometimes, the pressure comes from above - there is perceived need for capability, not a realization at the tech level that there is a capability looking for an application.
The bunker busters are the latter, I think, they are a push from above to engineer a particular weapon design that is not particularly techno neat, and not clear it will function as intended.
I also agree that the politicization of the issue has been unfortunate, the left and right alignments on the matter are now almost knee jerk and not generally in accord with the actual needs or capabilities.