Are ‘Mini-Nukes’ The New Big Thing?

A bomb of just one kiloton, detonated 30 meters below the earth, can open a crater wider than a football field, according to Princeton physicist Robert W. ET Sunday.

AP Photo/Canadian Press/Tim Krochak

Copyright 2003 CBS. D. According to Sen. wants to stop proliferation.

Announcing its approval of the bill Friday, the Senate Armed Services committee stressed that nothing in the repeal means it has authorized “the testing, acquisition, or deployment of a low-yield nuclear weapon.”

Defense officials said in 2002 that at present, the U.S could go from the decision to test to a trial run in two to three years. According to the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the move “restores the nation’s ability to make nuclear weapons,” and was needed so the Energy Department could replace pits found unsafe or destroyed through regular check-ups.

The Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima delivered around 15 kilotons. arsenal, the submarine-launched Mk-5 holds eight W88 warheads of 475 kilotons each.

But some experts contend that no bomb of any size could go very deep, because the heavier the bomb, the harder the impact — and the harder the impact, the more likely the bomb would explode before it reached sufficient depth.

Testing — The U.S.

However, the administration is paying increasing attention to the possibility that it might at some point have to resume testing if there were a question about the reliability of the nation’s stockpile.

At the same time, however, last month the United States produced a plutonium pit — the core of a fission bomb — for the first time in 14 years. Five people watching the surf from Hurricane Bill were swept out to sea at Acadia National Park in Maine. “nuclear strike capabilities” must be geared towards, according to a leaked copy of the report.

The 1993 low-yield ban that the current defense bill would delete stated that “it shall be the policy of the United States not to conduct research and development which could lead to the production by the United States of a new low-yield nuclear weapon, including a precision low-yield warhead.”. Nelson.

“How can we effectively seek to dissuade others from developing nuclear weapons while we are going forward with the development of new nuclear weapons ourselves?” Sen. has signed but not ratified — the administration says it has no plans to conduct a test. “If you were to have a problem with a weapon system that you needed to rectify using a test, you would want to be able to do that faster,” J. — did not prohibit designing a testing device with a yield below five kilotons, modifying an existing weapon for safety reasons or conducting research and development necessary “to address proliferation concerns.”

But some members of Congress believe conventional weapons could do the same job, and worry that mini-nukes would blur the line between conventional and nuclear weapons. Crouch, the assistant secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, said in a briefing last year.

But the administration says smaller nuclear arms may eventually be needed to deal with the emerging threat of rogue states hoarding weapons of mass destruction.

Last year, the U.S. Last May, he and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to slash their active arsenals by nearly two-thirds, to 1700 to 2200 warheads each, within 10 years. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, asked recently.’s Jarrett Murphy takes a look at the prospects for the U.S. policy on nuclear weapons, which has included:

Bunker busters — For the second year in a row, the Energy Department is requesting $15 million to study the need for a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP).

Supporters say these weapons might be necessary to deal with so-called “hard and deeply buried targets” in rogue states and terrorist camps, of which there might be 10,000 in the world.

By Jarrett Murphy

The ban — named after sponsors Elizabeth Furse, D-Ore., retired, and John Spratt, D-S.C. Other efforts include developing lasers and computers to simulate aspects of nuclear tests.

Nuclear Stockpiles: President Bush has agreed to dramatic reductions in the number of nuclear weapons in the U.S. All rights reserved.

A kiloton is equal to the explosive force of one thousand tons of TNT. “Unless we do a lot more research and development and we find some quantum breakthrough in conventional systems, to go deep is going to require a nuclear capability.”

CAROUSEL – People watch as water breaches a rock wall at Lawrencetown, Nova Scotia, Canada, Sunday, August 23, 2009. conducted its last nuclear test in 1992, and while the White House opposes the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty — which the U.S. Others contend that making more bombs is a bad idea if the U.S. Two had been recovered and three were still missing as of 5 p.m. Duncan Hunter, R.-Calif., last May. spent more in real terms on atomic defense activities than since 1962.

Strategy — In its Nuclear Posture Review last year, the administration identified Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea as countries where “contingencies” could arise that U.S. A memo obtained by a British newspaper indicates that at a conference this summer, Defense and Energy department officials will consider questions like: “What is the uncertainty in confidence and potential risk threshold for a test recommendation–what would demand a test?”

The Foster Panel, which studied the testing issue last year, recommended improvements that would allow a test within three months to a year of deciding to do so. development of low-yield nuclear weapons.

The Bush administration may get permission to create kinder, gentler or at least smaller nuclear weapons if Congress overturns a ban on doing so.

The defense appropriations bill now winding its way through the Hill contains a clause revoking the 1993 Spratt-Furse amendment, which prohibits the development of so-called “low-yield” nuclear weapons – bombs that pack a punch of less than five kilotons.

“Nuclear weapons have a unique ability to destroy both agent containers and (Chemical and Biological Weapons),” reads a 2001 Pentagon study.

The move to clear the legal hurdles on manufacturing mini-nukes is part of a broad review of U.S. Edward Kennedy, the administration has budgeted $700 million for studying how testing might resume. arsenal. In the modern U.S.

“One way you ensure that there are no safe havens is to be able to go deep,” said Armed Services Committee chairman Rep

RN administered 125 mg of Benadryl to two-year-old: case on point: K. D. v. Adrianne Chambers, RN, 49A04-1010-C T-636 (7/13/201 l)-IN.


Plaintiffs filed a Proposed Complaint with the Indiana Department of

Insurance. has continued to suffer from a

tremor that Plaintiffs claim was proximately caused by the overdose. will suffer from is disingenuous. The Defendants’ motions were granted. The Plaintiffs raised the issue of whether the

trial court abused its discretion when it; 1) granted Defendants’

motion to exclude all expert testimony by toxicologist Daniel McCoy.

Ph.D., on the grounds that he was not qualified to offer expert medical

testimony: 2.) granted Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude

evidence that Campbell suffered negligent infliction of emotional

distress, on the grounds that no such claim had been properly pleaded;

and 3) granted the Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence

of breaches of the standard of care, other than the overdose of

Benadryl, that were not presented to the medical review panel. Since then. All rights reserved.

LEGAL COMMENTARY: The error which the nurse involved in this case

is not an unusual type of error. K.D. However, the court

reversed the trial court’s ruling to exclude evidence of the

allegedly improper rate at which the Benadryl W88 administered, and

remanded the case back to the trial court with instructions to issue a

revised order in limine consistent with the opinion of the court.

COPYRIGHT 2011 Medical Law Publishing

No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.

Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. However, there is not a scintilla of an excuse for the error made. This case

illustrates why we have appellate courts, to right the wrongs of the

lower courts when the lower courts have failed to reach the correct

result on the law to be applied to the facts of the particular case.

Indeed, the Plaintiffs were fortunate that their counsel took an

interlocutory appeal. received other improper doses of

medication besides Benadryl, to the extent the Plaintiffs sought to

offer this claimed fact as an additional breach of the standard of”

care, which was not presented to the Review Panel. McCoy

and any reference to the fact that the dosage error was the cause of

permanent injury.

COURTS OPINION: The Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed the trial

court’s grant of the Defendants’ motion to exclude Dr.

McCoy’s expert testimony. The proposed complaint alleged that Nurse Chambers and the

hospital were negligent and breached the standard of care by failing to

administer the proper dosage of Benadryl which direct!) caused

K.D.’s condition. The court affirmed the trial court’s

ruling to exclude evidence that K. and Campbell (Plaintiffs) brought an

interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s grant of pretrial evidentiary motions by Adrianne Chambers, RN, and Riley Children’s

Hospital (Defendants). K.D. to the ER at Riley Children’s hospital

after he sustained a bump to his head. Such errors are made typically in cases

in which a decimal point is involved. K.D. K.D. However pursuant to the instructions of the

appellate court, the trial court will be required to follow the

appellate court’s directive on remand.

CASE FACTS: Michelle Campbell observed her two-year-old child.

K.D., suffer a reaction from an overdose of Benadry I and filed suit on

behalf of K.D. was hospitalized overnight, treated, and

released the next day. The Department found that the error resulted in a

temporary condition and was not the proximate cause of K.D.’s

permanent injuries Subsequently, the Defendants filed motions consistent

with the ruling of the Department to preclude the testimony of Dr. After the proposed

complaint was presented to a medical review panel, the case was

scheduled for a jury trial. K.D.,

who had no history of tremors before the error in dosage, and who,

within a short time after the nurse erred in administering approximately

ten times the accepted dosage of Benadryl, had a severe reaction to the

overdose that he was left with tremors, which he will, more likely than

not have for the rest of his life cannot be overlooked as the

Defendants, the Review Panel and the Trial Court would all have done but

for the judgment rendered by the appellate court in this case. D. soon exhibited a reaction to the overdose, his

body shaking “as if a seizure.” K.D. Nurse

Chambers administered an excessive dose of 125 milligrams, when the

medically indicated dose for a child of K.D.’s size and age was

12.5 milligrams. Obviously, the rulings of the trial court would

have set the stage for judgment for the Defendants on virtually all of

the key issues in the case. Nurses must never underestimate the

importance of the correct dosage in each case, particularly when a child

is involved. Retrospectively, hind sight being 20 /20, one might find it

almost inconceivable that any competent nurse could make such an error.

The contention that the error in dosage was not the proximate cause of

the permanent tremors which K.D. and herself for medical malpractice. On May 9,

1995, Campbell took K.D. had never reacted to

Benadryl in such a manner. Campbell watched as Nurse

Chambers administered an intravenous dose of Benadryl to K.D. The

Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal.

Quality of warhead triggers questioned

For years, however, testing the warhead’s components to ensure the weapon produces the intended blast instead of a fizzle has been complicated by a lack of replacement plutonium triggers.

The Project on Government Oversight says it was told by some Los Alamos scientists that the trigger certified last July and known as the W88 pit needed 72 waivers from the specifications used for the original triggers, including 53 engineering-related changes.

Because the United States no longer conducts underground nuclear tests, the Los Alamos scientists had to rely on other sources to replicate the original triggers and guarantee that the replacements would be as reliable as the old. The original triggers, all made at the now-closed Rocky Flats facility in Colorado, were hammered into precise form. That, in turn, creates the high temperatures and pressure to ignite a “secondary” nuclear component. These means included small-scale plutonium tests, technical data from past underground tests, and computer codes and models.

The new ones were made by using a mold to cast the grapefruit-size plutonium sphere. This process is viewed by metallurgists as producing a stronger product.

The government acknowledges differences between the old triggers and their replacements.

Since last summer’s announcement, the Los Alamos lab has made 10 additional W88 triggers.

Precise manufacture of the trigger is essential.

At least one other replacement pit required 71 specification waivers, a Los Alamos scientist indirectly involved in the production process told The Associated Press. halted in 1992, and through a different process than the replacements. To scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, that was a milestone to celebrate. The last of the original triggers were manufactured in the late 1980s.

Any variation or flaw in the pit could cause a warhead not to detonate properly or to detonate with less explosive power than expected.

Last summer, the first replacement plutonium trigger in 18 years received “diamond stamp” approval signaling it was ready for use in a warhead. She posed that question in a letter last Friday to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.

A watchdog group now is raising questions about whether the replacement triggers, also known as pits, can be guaranteed to be as reliable as those already in some 400 W88 warheads. The scientist spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the issue.

Resting atop the Trident II missile, the W88 warhead is among the mainstays of the country’s submarine-based nuclear arsenal. So far, nine have earned the “diamond stamp” from the National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the lab’s programs. Such approval means they are ready to use.

“With this large number of waivers, how is it possible to objectively tell whether the pit will even work?” said Danielle Brian, executive director of the group that monitors nuclear weapons-related activities. The result is a a massive hydrogen blast.. The original triggers were made with the benefit of underground nuclear testing, which the U.S. It meant the warheads, after testing that makes the original trigger unsuitable for reuse, could be reassembled with a new trigger and put back into service.

In a warhead’s detonation, a conventional explosive packaged around the pit compresses the plutonium inward, creating enough pressure for an atomic chain reaction

The Impending Dangers of Nuclear War: America’s W88 Thermonuclear Warhead is 30 Times a Hiroshima Bomb | Global Research

How can we ever be sure that some deranged psychopath will not gain power in one of the nuclear states and deceive him/herself into believing that it is in their best interests to make a first strike? How can we ever be sure that some terrorist organisations will not hack into the electronic control systems and carry out the launching themselves? And we now know that even a small nuclear exchange could be a lethal threat to everyone on the planet. Getting rid of them will take courageous leadership by states but such leadership will have the support of civil society. The huge burgeoning of awareness in the citizens of the world is bearing fruit.


The Second Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons was held in Nayarit, Mexico, on 13 and 14 February 2014. He called for a ‘legally binding instrument’ and declared that the, ‘time has come to initiate a diplomatic process conducive to this goal. The existence of nuclear weapons means they could be used by accident, by misunderstanding or by malicious intent. As we discuss the statistics and strategies of ‘nuclear arsenals’ and ‘nuclear deterrence’ it can be hard to keep in mind the reality underlying the abstract discussions. It is time to take action 7.’


Their brief and nightmarish ascendancy is over. India and Pakistan sent observers.

Notes. It is the turn of the last and most destructive of them all.

The Third Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons will be held in Austria later this year. It is time we ban nuclear weapons.

File:W-88 warhead detail.png



And finally there is hope. She concluded ‘It is time to change the status quo. Ray Acheson, in her closing statement on behalf of ICAN to the Second Conference included the words ‘The claim by some states that they continue to need these weapons to deter their adversaries has been exposed by the evidence presented at this conference and in Oslo as a reckless and unsanctionable gamble with our future’.

After hearing presentations from a wide range of experts on the various effects of nuclear weapon detonations the conference concluded that “it is unlikely that any state or international body could address the immediate humanitarian emergency caused by a nuclear weapon detonation in an adequate manner and provide sufficient assistance to those affected.” Conference members also agreed that the effects of a nuclear weapon detonation will not be constrained by national borders but will produce significant negative regional and global effects6.

 So with these and other major forces at work there is an unstoppable movement towards banning these Armageddon machines. The other four nuclear states(Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea) too are ‘improving’ their arsenals.

Citizens of the world have simultaneously become aware that the nuclear states do not intend to get rid of their nuclear weapons and that their existence imposes a permanent and intolerable threat to us all. What sort of people would do such a thing? What kind of human would threaten such an atrocity?  


 Furthermore decent people round the globe know that the existence of nuclear weapons is a brooding evil which undermines the moral integrity of humankind.

The W88 is over 30 times more destructive than the bomb which wiped out Hiroshima. We believe this is the path to achieve a world without nuclear weapons’.

The situation is being rendered even more dangerous by the US and Russia who keep 1,800 weapons on high alert atop long-range ballistic missiles that are ready to launch 5 to 15 minutes after receiving an order!

The International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)8 is a coalition of over 350 organisations in 90 countries. In a limited nuclear war between India and Pakistan 20 million people would die from the nuclear blasts, fires, and radioactive fallout. It included delegations representing 146 States, the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement and civil society organizations.

A single W88 could completely destroy London, Moscow or New York. Is it possible to imagine the degree of paranoia represented by such a standing threat? The UK government has started to spend one hundred billion pounds on rebuilding its Trident fleet of nuclear submarines, each one with the capacity to incinerate over 40 million people. This is being done at a time when many citizens are suffering from inadequate defences against flooding and when the social services are being radically cut back. 

It is ironic that the worst offenders are the five permanent members of the ‘Security’ Council of the United Nations. The world has moved on.

She went on to explain that the use against cities of less than one percent of existing weapons would put billions of lives in jeopardy and have a long lasting detrimental  effect on both the planet’s climate and agriculture. The non-nuclear majority which do not feel the need for a lethal ‘security’ crutch have decided to take the initiative. The nuclear states have become a sorry sight. And rather than focus on the numbers and ‘yields’ of the weapons it was wisely decided to concentrate on the effects on humanity of the use of nuclear weapons. Due to ‘…proliferation, the vulnerability of nuclear command and control networks to cyber-attacks and to human error and potential access to nuclear weapons by non-state actors, in particularly terrorist groups’ the risks are ‘growing globally’. It is not easy to face up to the implications of these arsenals especially if you bear the primary responsibility. The other weapons of mass destruction have already been banned. As the great moral leader Desmond Tutu wrote “Nuclear weapons are an obscenity.

The US government has 5 nuclear submarines on patrol at all times carrying 1000 times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb3. Our belief is that this process should comprise a specific timeframe, the definition of the most appropriate fora, and a clear and substantive framework, making the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons the essence of disarmament efforts. She insisted that we must act to get rid of them or they will be used by accident, misunderstanding or malicious intent. Humanity owes a great debt to Norway for this initiative.

The powerful summary statement of the conference Chair pointed out that the broad participation of states and civil society reflected the burgeoning awareness that this issue is of the utmost importance to all the peoples of the world. But these 9 are outnumbered by 20 to one. The nuclear states were invited but declined to attend. The next logical development, as the nuclear states continue to deny their obligations to shed their arsenals, is for the non-nuclear states to proceed independently to enact a treaty outlawing these weapons internationally. By focusing attention on the humanitarian consequences of their use they are well on their way to doing so.

Mexico offered to host a follow-up meeting to this conference and such is the vital importance of this approach that other states declared their intention to organise additional events on this subject.

The nine nuclear states have over 10,000 nuclear weapons in their stockpiles1. This is enough to wipe out the entire population of the planet many times over together with all other life forms.


This ground-breaking and historic conference was attended by delegates from 127 countries and 70 nongovernmental organizations. The movement for an international ban is unstoppable.


The first International Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons was held in 2013. The suffering would be indescribable and for many would go on for months and years before death. 7.

The US, the UK, Russia, China and France are rebuilding or upgrading their arsenals of nuclear weapons. The security of the non-nuclear states is threatened by the irresponsible and self-focused behaviour of the 9 others.

Is this sane? Has the human race lost its senses? A single United States thermonuclear warhead, designated W88, has an estimated ‘yield’ of 475 kilotons2.  The ‘yield’ is the destructive power expressed in tons of TNT equivalent. As awareness of the humanitarian impact grows hearts and minds are being changed worldwide. No emergency services could begin to cope There would be no relief. They are the very antithesis of humanity5…’

There are 9 nuclear states and there are 183 non-nuclear states. These weapons must be outlawed; ‘in the past, weapons have been eliminated after they have been outlawed. Frozen in a realm of outdated thinking which was always inhuman; their leaders frightened and paranoid and prepared to put the survival of humanity in jeopardy simply in order to feel important and powerful as they strut, uncomprehending, on the world stage.

The risks of ‘accidental, mistaken, unauthorised or intentional use is growing significantly due to more countries holding weapons on higher levels of combat readiness’. Each bomb on a major city would kill millions of people; women, children, babies, old people, everyone. And the fallout would have global consequences that would kill millions of people, disrupt climate patterns, and threaten global agricultural collapse4.

The only remedy is an enforced world ban on the existence of nuclear weapons. They have had 69 years to get rid of their nuclear weapons while all that the citizens of the world hear from them are windy speeches around purported good intentions which never come to fruition

Obama proposes shifting funds from nuclear nonproliferation to nuclear weapons | The Center for Public Integrity

(Work on the facility and its equipment was well along when DOE abruptly realized it would not be large enough to accommodate needed machinery, forcing a costly redesign and lengthy delays.)

But then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, after hearing from aides that these overruns were due in part to poor management and inaccurate cost accounting at DOE, initially said the department would not provide any new funds to DOE, on top of the $4.5 billion it previously promised to cover earlier overruns, according to two government officials privy to the deliberations.

Under the Obama proposal, the budget for other DOE work related to nuclear nonproliferation would also be curtailed by about $277 million. The study determined that the modernization program was underfunded, and steps have been taken to ensure adequate funding for essential modernization needs moving forward.”

The department’s nonproliferation programs, aimed at diminishing the security threat posed by fissile materials in other countries that can be used for nuclear weapons, would be cut by roughly 20 percent, or $460 million, below the current level of $2.45 billion, the officials said.

The priority shift “is going to be a disaster,” said a Democratic congressional aide, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak on the budget before its official release. But Democrats on Capitol Hill and independent arms control groups predicted the decision will provoke controversy and a substantial budget fight this year.

Moniz, in his confirmation hearing, tread carefully around the topic of what the department should be spending on nonproliferation. It then asked the Pentagon to provide the additional $7 billion.

The Center for Public Integrity has previously reported administration officials had agreed that the number of nuclear warheads the U.S. “I will certainly look into this with high priority” if confirmed, he told Scott.

Tom Collina, research director for the Arms Control Association, a Washington-based nonprofit group, said “in a way,” it seems inconsistent for the administration to promote arms control while cutting the DOE’s nonproliferation budget. That plant was initially budgeted at $1.8 billion, but the pricetag has ballooned to at least $7.5 billion, provoking widespread criticism and allegations of mismanagement.

Only one category of Energy Department nonproliferation work would be increased – research and development, mostly to finance work on a new nuclear detonation sensor to be placed about Air Force satellites.

But several officials and other sources familiar with the administration’s budget deliberations this year said the DOE nuclear weapons-related cost overruns and the new austerity climate gripping Washington – including the demand under so-called “sequestration” legislation for $54 billion in national security spending cuts each year until 2021 -had upended the administration’s plans to spend more on nonproliferation.

To cover the $10 billion total cost overrun, the Energy Department and its National Nuclear Security Administration agreed to transfer roughly $3 billion into weapons work from management accounts and other internal savings. Not by a long shot.” He also proudly said the government has been “increasing funding, and sustaining it … At the end of it, a $250 million DOE “nuclear counterterrorism incident response” program previously considered a weapons activity was shifted to the nonproliferation budget account, a change that has the effect of making the bottom line for that account look better than it otherwise would have.

Under the 2014 proposal, the Energy Department’s nuclear weapons activities funding — which includes modernization efforts for bomber-based and missile-based warheads – would be increased roughly 7 percent, or around $500 million, above the current level of $7.227 billion for these activities.

The Energy Department needs at least $3 billion to $5 billion more to upgrade the B61 nuclear bomb – meant for deployment aboard strategic and tactical aircraft – than it initially expected, and several billions of dollars more to cover cost overruns in construction of the uranium processing facility. Tim Scott (R.-S.C.) about whether he supports completing the MOX plant. But he said officials may have calculated that they cannot win congressional support for further cuts in nuclear arsenals with Russia without spending billions more to refurbish America’s remaining stockpile of nuclear weapons, under a bargain Obama struck during his first term.

In the end, the Pentagon was cajoled into contributing $3 billion more.

The Obama administration will propose a deep cut in funding for nuclear nonproliferation programs at the Energy Department largely so it can boost the department’s spending to modernize its stockpile of nuclear weapons, according to government officials familiar with the proposed 2014 federal budget to be unveiled Wednesday, April 10.

The half-billion-dollar shift in spending priorities reflects an administration decision that nuclear explosives work the Energy Department performs for the military should be both accelerated and expanded. continue to sustain the nation’s nuclear security,” he said, without delving into budgetary issues or specific programs.

Secretary of Energy nominee Ernest Moniz, speaking at a Senate confirmation hearing Tuesday, ducked multiple questions from Sen. Its construction would be greatly slowed, while the Defense Department and the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration study alternative ways to safeguard tons of the excess plutonium.

One, who asked not to be named, said the DOE shortfall had set off “months of wrangling” about the issue, not only within the department but at the highest levels of the administration. A Pentagon spokeswoman, Jennifer D. That would include a 16 percent cut in spending on efforts to halt the use of fissile material in civilian nuclear reactors and collect or secure weapons-usable fissile materials in other countries; an 8 percent cut in spending on policy to control the spread of nuclear weapons-related technologies; and a 36 percent cut in efforts to monitor potential illicit commerce in fissile materials.

Joan Rohlfing, president of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonprofit arms control group founded by Ted Turner and former Sen. The officials have also decided to discuss a potential agreement for such reductions with Russian president Vladimir Putin.

As recently as December 3, President Obama described the government’s nuclear nonproliferation efforts – including some directed by the Defense Department – as “one of our most important national security programs.” Speaking at the National Defense University, Obama said the effort was “nowhere near done. Sam Nunn, said “the U.S. “These cuts are going to be huge,” and will be particularly problematic amid budget boosts for weapons programs that many lawmakers believe “have been mismanaged for the last five to six years.”

The plant is about 60 percent completed, but one senior administration official called it “managerially and programmatically, a nightmare,” with continuously rising costs.

Under the Obama administration’s proposal for fiscal year 2014, spending for the MOX plant would be around $330 million, or 47 percent of the budget it was supposed to get next year. Elzea, declined to address the issue in detail but confirmed that “over the past year DOD and DOE carried out a joint study regarding DOD’s nuclear weapons requirements and funding options for those requirements. “If confirmed, I intend to make sure that [DOE laboratories and intelligence experts] … programs for securing, reducing and eliminating weapons usable nuclear materials are a critical part of our strategy for combating nuclear terrorism and preventing the proliferation of these deadly dangerous materials…A decision to significantly cut these programs, including our near-term ability to dispose of excess plutonium, would be a setback to our ability to reach critical security goals.”

Specifically, officials said, the Energy Department determined in consultation with the Pentagon that it would likely need $10 billion in new funds to fulfill all of its promises to the military for the production of modernized warheads, over the next decade alone.

The department also needs more funds than anticipated for improvements to the W76 warhead, which is carried by Trident submarine-based missiles.. But that still left a $4 billion gap between DOE’s nuclear weapons-related promises to the military and its ability to complete that work, forcing a scramble during the department’s budget deliberations to cut from other programs, officials said.

The new weapons-related spending would expand efforts to upgrade the W76, W88, W78, and B-61 warheads, and help fund construction of a new facility in Tennessee for processing uranium, a nuclear explosive used in these and other warheads. nuclear weapons arsenal into fuel for reactors that generate electricity, known as the Mixed-Oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication plant in Savannah River, S.C. because our national security depends on it.”

Asked for comment, NNSA spokesman Robert Middaugh said he could not respond until the budget has been formally released. These programs have experienced billions of dollars in cost overruns in recent years, forcing the administration to look elsewhere in the DOE budget to find the money it needs to keep them alive.

Much of the reduction in nonproliferation spending – around $183 million – would come from a controversial plant designed to transform excess plutonium from the U.S. military deploys could be cut by at least a third, below a limit of 1550 established in a treaty with Russia in 2010

The Right to Work for International Students

Foreign students have to pay tuition three times as much as Americans; it is harder for them to afford college without working. They go shopping in Dollar Tree stores, and they are familiar faces in food banks.

Mr. Besides, students get laid-off after one thousand working hours. The Hickeys however, may not know that the young and sweet Vietnamese waiter is working under the table, so he can’t get the tip. Did they ever think about the situation employees would hire the student who worked a part-time job, or the student who never worked before? A job not only brings some extra bucks to a student, but also gives him invaluable social experiences which are really needed in the future. If they study in England instead of America, America will lose money from this loss. Firstly, it affects international students wanting to study in USA. It is better that American change the rule or people don’t need to tip in Asian restaurants because restaurant owners will take it, not waiters.

. They usually get paid from $6 to $8 per hour under a hard working condition. It is obviously not good for their studying.

The second effect is the policy creates a tremendous number of illegal jobs. The waiting list is getting longer and longer. According to Opendoors website, international students contribute approximately twelve billion dollars to the US economy through their expenditures on tuition and living expense. They will contribute to their countries instead of to the country of Statue of Liberty. The fact that the international students are not allowed to work off campus has resulted in a large number of illegal working students. Hickey and his wife are in love with Asian cuisine. They enjoy the foods there and give out generous tips to the waiter who has been so nice to them. They usually go out for dinner at a Vietnamese restaurant called Saigon on weekends. The government’s policy has its reasons; but it has caused a number of negative impacts on international students, and does not seem to be a good idea for the American economy.

The policy, firstly, creates a hard pressure on international students, especially the poor. Landscape guys have to climb up a thirty foot tree without any safety kit, because it costs $80 for employees to rent a kit in one day for cutting trees. Secondly, there are more than half a million foreign students, if US allows them to work, America will have a huge source of cheap and skilled labors. They will set up many companies which may become American companies’ opponents in the future.

There are some reasons for American government to prohibit international students from working, but its effects outweigh such reasons. The government and schools just push students into illegal labor market. Students are allowed to work part-time outside campus in such countries as Japan, Australia or England, while they are not in the U.S. Because after such amount of time, they will get more benefit according to the laws of labor union. Iphones suppliers for black market in Asia are usually foreign students in America. Above is the effect for the poor, and below is the effect for the rich. For example, at South Seattle Community College, resident students pay $73.90 per credit, while non-resident students pay $245.60. One of the simple reasons is Americans are whether or not willing to do dirty jobs like cleaning toilet which a lot of foreigners are eager to do. However, the fact is the number of illegal workers still increases overtime, and the unemployment grew five percent in December 2007. However, they know that they are risking their stay at the United States. On the other hand, the policymakers state that foreign students come here to study, not for work. Unless, after graduating, they will come back their countries, take their knowledge away America. Therefore, to be able to pursue their studies at school, international students, in addition to saving money as much as possible, try to find a job off campus. After many complicated laundering steps, they can cash-out safely.

The rule not only creates a whole bunch of illegal jobs, but also is not a good idea for American economy. Wealthy international students study in school three hours a day, don’t have a job, so many of them have a whole bunch of free time for playing, gambling, or engaging in drunken merrymaking. Schools do allow students to work on campus, but for a limited number of hours, and there are also not many vacancies. This will make students hesitate about choosing the US for study. The schools don’t want to pay these extra bucks, so they just kick students out of workplaces. They work from ten to twelve hours per day without a break. They live three people in one rented cramped room, make tables from traffic signs, and buy chairs from Goodwill. While all their American classmates can legally have a job to pay for college, most students from overseas who are already allowed to work legally in their home countries have to cover the increasingly high expenses of college using their parents’ money. It is like the devil makes work for idle hands. Students, who choose to work under the table, are abused by callous employees. Waiters can’t get their tip and run in a whole day like crazy dogs. This is definitely not a small amount of money, especially to students. In addition, some students need money so much that they have to do illegal jobs like smuggling Iphones or money laundering. Annually, a typical international student has to pay from $10,000 to $15,000 for study fees, and at least $6,000 for living expenses. In contrast, the policymakers may state that the purpose of the law is protecting jobs for natives, although the policy makes the labor market less competitive. For money laundering, Asian hackers steal the information of many US bank accounts and give them to students

Column: FIFA presidency no laughing matter as would-be candidate becomes frontman for gambling

But the mere thought of the gambling industry even attempting to place a stooge at the very top of football makes the prospect of another Blatter term seem perhaps not quite so bad.

. The increase was three-fold for children aged 4-15.

And that isn’t funny at all.

One of those is Kevin Twaddle, a former player for Motherwell and other Scottish clubs who told his story in the biography, “Life On The Line: How to Lose a Million and So Much More.” He no longer gambles and has delivered talks to other players about the risks.

Asking your kids to make tea during half-time breaks won’t shield them from the bombardment, not with gambling ads flashing throughout matches on pitch-side light-boards. So silky as a player for Newcastle and Tottenham; so ridiculous now with his car-crash campaign for the FIFA presidency.

But that’s not the point here. It reads like a plug for Fifty Shades of Grey.

But gambling advertising wasn’t as in-your-face as now. Bet again. Hull against Aston Villa on Feb. After Thursday’s passing of the entry deadline, “Team Ginola” should fade away.

“It just makes like a mockery of football.”

Whoa. “There’s more passion, more pleasure and more pain.”

We’re talking here about David Ginola. In pocketing 250,000 pounds (335,000 euros; US$375,000) from bookmaker Paddy Power for this stunt, Ginola became the latest Trojan horse in the gambling and gaming industry’s creeping and creepy embrace of football.

But the targets were our wallets and spending habits, not our hearts. 10 will pit two Asian online bookmakers against each other. There’s nothing funny about the gambling industry’s latest wheeze to sink its teeth even deeper into football and its fans.


That is the message that football, more than most other sports, is mainlining into our homes, helped by names like Ginola and teams lending their cachet, stadiums, jerseys and players to the industry that had cash to splash when the 2008 financial crisis hobbled other sponsors.

“It’s eyeballs we’re after,” 12Bet executive Rory Anderson, quoted in the Daily Mail, said when the online bookmaker became the name on Hull City’s shirt for this Premier League season.

“I’m here today to talk about love” were the Frenchman’s seductive opening words at his campaign launch in London this month.

Twaddle takes a very dim view of Ginola’s Paddy Power-backed grab for FIFA.

And how about this blurb from Sky Bet, title sponsor since 2013 of England’s three divisions below the Premier League. It won’t happen; FIFA’s ethics rules should see to that. That much was clear from the Paddy Power branding.

Ginola has zero chance of unseating Sepp Blatter. This was about making a splash. That was before online bookmakers offered odds on anything and everything, from match results and goals scored to which team will win the coin toss or take the first corner, and before their relentless advertising.

Sports and gambling have, of course, long gone together, feeding off each other’s success and growth. All this in a sport grappling with the increasing danger of gambling-related match-fixing and with ample examples of gambling-addicted players who frittered away their wealth.

“It’s an absolute disgrace,” he said in a phone interview. What ever happened to sport for sport’s sake, for the buzz of competition, not a bet? How quaint. Bet some more.

Sport “matters more when there’s money on it,” it says. “It’s great for Paddy Power. In the UK, which liberalized gambling advertising in 2007, adults’ exposure to gambling commercials on television soared five-fold in eight years to 2012, regulator Ofcom found. Write to him at or follow him at

Imagine, for a moment, a Paddy Power-financed FIFA president. But I mean you’re talking about one of the biggest, powerfulest jobs in football and all you’re getting to hear about is Paddy Power.”

Bet. Villa’s shirt sponsor is dafabet, a name that works better in Chinese, where “dafa” means “big wealth.” Stoke and Burnley players are billboards for Bet365 and Fun88 (another name that plays on the Chinese word to get rich).

John Leicester is an international sports columnist for The Associated Press. Tuning in for results of football betting pools, which offered big jackpots for small stakes, was a Saturday afternoon ritual for many 20th Century English families.

PARIS –  Don’t laugh. FIFA’s election and ethics rules will almost certainly keep him off the May ballot

Who killed John F. Kennedy?

well obviously Lee Harvey Oswald took the “fall”

even though his gun sites s=were so “off” he would have a hard time hitting the CAR let alone the man, also the bolyt action on his riffel would not recaulk as fast as the bullets were fired on the films, (he is still the blame). there was a second shooter, (I don t think Oswald knew) but the (other shooter) was at the grassy knoll, (theory has it maffia from the booze running, or the cia or the cubans) but I doubt history books will ever be changed!

Fun88 agree pounds 2.5m Burnley shirt deal.

The Burnley deal starts next season, when Fun88

are planning to make a play for a stake in the European market.

THE LATEST gambling entrant to Premier League football shirt

sponsorship is Chinese operator Fun88, which has signed a twoyear deal

worth pounds 2.5million with Burnley.

. All rights reserved.


No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.

Previously branded Asiabet88, Fun88 include a sportsbook alongside

their casino offering.

Struggling in the relegation zone after Sunday’s mauling by

Aston Villa, Burnley may take some comfort from Fun88′s website

slogan: Where dreams come true.

Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning