Re: OT You want underreported news...

SC Flamed:

>You really don't know what you are talking about do you?  Why would
anyone 
even >try to compare these two treadies? 
<SNIP>

Since you started this you should be more careful. It's treaties, not 
treadies.I guess you don't know what you're talking about do you?

>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.
<snip>

Did you ever think that is exactly what this treaty is trying to
accomplish? 
For most of the countries of the world an atomic weapon is just as
costly as 
a battleship, was to the major powers, with as much to lose getting into
a 
costly "nuclear arms race" as back then. The "nuclear free" sugar
coating is 
just so people think this pile of garbage is thought of as a good
treaty, 
without looking at the more obscure aspects of the thing, which as usual
are 
the more important parts. The very fact that it bans nukes in space is
enough 
for me to give it thumbs down. Much less the verification parts of it. 

>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...

<snip>

Battleships were the nukes of their day, the arm of decision, rightly or

wrongly. The fact is that merely building them was the early 20th
century 
version of the MX missile project, causing controversy and 
counter-plans by 
the builders adversary, EXACTLY what this treaty is trying to do, but
won't. 
Testing simply by computer won't be enough to keep the arsenal of
nuclear 
weapons current. As you can easily find out by reading a book about
them, 
nukes are tricky things, and very hard to design. I for one don't want
to 
need one and not have it work because it wasn't tested, just simulated
on 
computers. You get all sorts of nasty suprises, like it doesn't work, or

works WAY too well. No thanks.

So, please don't discount someones historical parallel, you would be
suprised 
how the same things come around again and again, in different forms. And

please let's take this off the list. If you want to respond, do it in
person, 
and let's get back to talking about important stuff! :-)

John
JohnDHamill@aol.com