I linked to this story [....] by William M. Arkin, who seems to have good credentials.

Thanks.... that pretty much turns off the Moonie filter (no sign of a "Let's bomb North Korea!" subtext!!).

And he doesn't hesitate at a little editorial:

" But the NPR's call for development of new nuclear weapons that reduce "collateral damage" myopically ignores the political, moral and military implications--short-term and long--of crossing the nuclear threshold.

No kidding.

Rumsfeld reigns. Star Wars redux. I mean, we would probably take them to task if they didn't fully explore contingencies, but methinks their assumptions and vision are warped: "Why, we had no other choice but to nuke that mountainside and the 14 villages in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iraq."

[edit: Ah, I just realized that your Arkin piece is from march, 2002, so the Times/UPI stories don't seem like such "new" news, just a scary update: Plan completed and approved.]