RE: OT You want underreported news...

> From: UsClintons@aol.com [mailto:UsClintons@aol.com]
> 
> > It isn't really much of a treaty.
> 
> Funny, most of the rest of the world seems to think so...

You mean the *governments* of those others countries think so...

Doesn't mean they're right.

> > 1.	It stops any use of nuclear explosions in space,
> > for any reason...
> 
> This is already banned for both the US and all former USSR 
> republics.  It was covered in a tready signed a long time ago 
> (mid 60s I think).  Still in force as far as I know.	The new 
> tready would not change the net effect on the US one bit.  It 
> would just attempt to make OTHER countries abide by the same 'rules'.

But this rule is wrong.  Why not take the opportunity to change it?

> > 2.	It really doesn't ban anything, since there is an
> > opt-out clause...
> 
> Any tready of such a massive scope would have a clause of 
> this sort.  IIRCC this was inserted with US support/insistance.

Doesn't matter. It still leaves a gaping hole in it.

<rant deleted>

I really don't care why the Repubs rejected it, Dems supported it, or
the
political infighting around it.  I made my own decision from reading the
actual treaty.	Like most treaties/laws, it's mostly a 'feel good'
measure.

vargr1							 UPP-8D9B85
---------------------------- Omnia dicta fortiora, si dicta latina.
Meyers-Briggs personality type: ENTJ		    vargr1@jcn1*com
"...the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with."	  dmoody@bridge*com