Re: OT You want underreported news...

In a message dated Mon, 18 Oct 1999  1:39:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Ryan M Gill <monty@arcadia.turner.com> writes:

> 
> Re this treaty issue. I have one thing to say. Did the > washington
treaty (which essentiall tried to limit a 
> simiar sort of race) do any good what so ever at 
> limiting the production of battle ships, cruisers and 
> destroyers?

You really don't know what you are talking about do you?  Why would
anyone even try to compare these two treadies?	One was a mainly a
restriction on the SIZE of battleships.  The other is a tready to ban
TESTING of nuclear weapons and has nothing to do with production
whatsoever!  If you can't see the difference between the two types of
treadies then perhaps you should "...look it up before you gripe..."

OTHO perhaps you should "look it up" anyway.  Because to answer your
question again (I beleive I already stated this in a previous email),
YES.  Yes, as a matter of fact the Washington tready did EXACTLY what
the crafters of the tready enteneded.  Do you even know what that was? 
I don't think so.  Their main over-riding consern had nothing to do with
stopping a global arms race for the sake of 'world peace'.  Perhaps that
is what your high school History teacher told you, but that is not the
case.  No, it had every thing to do with money.  None of major powers
that signed wanted to spend the MONEY a global naval arms race would
cost considering the (possible) unlimited size of the new class of
battleships being produced.

So, yes the tready did work, exactly as crafted.  None of the singnatory
countires violated the tready with the single exception of Germany and
its construction of the Bismark (Japan did not sign).  That's it.  That
is all the tready was SUPPOSE to do and it did it (for the most part),
understand?

Now what that 90 year old weapon size limitation tready has to do with a
test ban on 21 century nuclear weapons I don't know...

> If you don't know about this history, then look it up before you gripe

> about the recent senate action.  

Yeah, nice advice why don't you take it.

SC