Apparently, Princess Sparklepony did not and will not sign the follow-on white paper to Maintaining Deterrence in the 21st Century, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the RRW. At least that is what Elaine Grossman reports
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has declined to formally endorse an interagency “white paper” on nuclear deterrence strategy, Global Security Newswire has learned (see GSN, July 25, 2007).
The roughly 30-page document, which has yet to be publicly released, is intended to expand on a four-page statement about nuclear weapons policy issued jointly in July 2007 by three Cabinet secretaries: Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. The unclassified version of the new paper has been delayed several times but should be unveiled in the next few weeks, according to Bush administration officials.
The State Department was consulted on the white paper and supports its contents, but has stopped short of officially sponsoring it, Rice’s staff officially confirmed. Aides said Rice opted to leave it to her defense and energy counterparts to issue the new document because it is more technical than last year’s statement, and thus lies outside her diplomatic purview.
As you can see from the story, I don’t blame her one bit. Apparently she learned that important lesson from her parents about not jumping off a bridge just because the other cabinet secretaries did it too.
Wow! I think you understand this stuff better than I do! Because I’d totally describe this more as “Condi punted.”
A newer so-called “white paper” about nuclear deterrence, is a joint classified paper by Secretary of DoD Dr. Robert Gates and Secretary of Energy Dr. Samuel Bodman, around March, 2008.
It is mentioned by the head of DOE/NNSA Tom D´Agostino here:
(//armedservices.house.gov/hearing_information.shtml (general))
(ibid, Thursday, July 17, 2008 – 10:00 am – 2212 Rayburn – Open, The Strategic Forces Subcommittee will meet to hear testimony on nuclear weapons complex modernization, (specific))
And soon here:
House Hearing on Nuclear Weapons Complex Modernization
DefensePlus Document dated : 7/17/2008
(//defensenewsstand.com/newsstand_search.asp?ACTION=RETURN (specific))
(//defensenewsstand.com (general))
Jeff, WMD´s are by definition:
nuclear-, biological-, chemical-, and radiological weapons.
Why don´t you blog about the suicide of the presumable Anthrax Killer, Dr. Bruce E. Ivins of Fort Detrick, MD ??? (USAMRIID)
(//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_E._Ivins)
The white paper´s name is:
National Security and Nuclear Weapons: Maintaining Deterrence in the 21 st century, March, 2008 (classified)
I have an idea: as the stockpile stewardship process continues and we find ~1 out of 100 warheads unsatisfactory, one by one let’s replace those non-functional ones with big Mexican pinatas.
Eventually, all the stockpile will be pinata warheads which won’t need further stewardship. And the deterrent value will be unchanged. Of course, this process will have to be kept Top Secret hyper compartmentalized so our Russian & Chinese “enemies” who prop up our economy don’t catch wind of it.
We could then consider a Reliable Replacement Pinata plan as the sweets within slowly rot.
Stockholm: pls don’t call me too early in the morning about my Nobel peace prize.
FSB. Don’t worry. Stockholm won’t call. The Peace Prize is handed out by the Norwegians.
Does anyone know for sure that the Russians don’t have pinatas for warheads?
Seriously though, anyone have any idea about the reliability of Russian ICBMs and/or warheads?
Does that mean the US would then have a plethora of piñatas?
Andreas,
ah, Norway, Sweden no difference, man…dem folks is all, like, “Europeans” and stuff, no? — they all be wearin’ clogs, eatin’ cheese and cross-country skiing! I heard they don’t even got no Monster trucks up there!
😉