Congress agrees there should be NO nukes on the battlefield!!

Holy smokes! There is actually someone in Congress that has some sense. Why would the administration need tactical weapons such as those referenced in this article? On Nov. 20, House and Senate appropriation committees approved an omnibus spending package for various government agencies for fiscal year 2005, including the Energy Department, which is responsible for nuclear weapons-related programs. The Bush administration had requested $9 million to investigate advanced new nuclear weapon concepts, such as low-yield warheads and $27 million to continue research on modifying two existing high-yield warheads to destroy targets buried deep underground. The bomb used to destroy Hiroshima registered around 13 kilotons. Low-yield warheads are those defined as being less than five kilotons, while the proposed "bunker busters" could be ten times as powerful as the weapon used against Hiroshima. Led by Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Rep. David Hobson (R-Ohio), House appropriators had zeroed out funding for these controversial nuclear weapons programs earlier this year, while the Senate side under the direction of Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) had fully supported them. Proposed amendments in both the Senate and the House on related bills to bar the use of funds for the nuclear weapons projects fell short of approval this summer. However, Hobson and Senate Democrats, led by Senators Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), prevailed in an unusual post-election negotiation on the spending bill. Nukes should really only be used as a deterrent... That's just my opinion... TexT