RE: OT You want underreported news...

> > I'd hardly call it underreported since the whole
> > sordid affair has been over the news for two weeks.
> > Los
> 

Considering the scope of the tready and the length of time it took to
get such a tready and the effect its loss will have COUPLED with the
coup in Pak. happening at the same time...Massively underreported IMO

> It isn't really much of a treaty.

Funny, most of the rest of the world seems to think so...

> 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'.

> 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.

	     <start rant>

Fact is this tready is the best anyone could hope to see in the next
decade or so.  It took a LONG time to get this one.  And Republicans
voted it down because they are still pissed at 'Billy'.

Unverifiable they claim?  Give me a break! If this is true then they
need to stop ALL other business and give MASSIVE amounts of money to the
CIA, NEC and other agencies of the sort to get their @#$! together.  I
find it hard to beleive that the network of 'spy' satilites the US has
could not detect the massive X-Ray burst an atomic explosion produces.

The US stockpile would not be 'maintainable' they say?	Funny, the rest
of the nuclear club has no problem with this.  And the US has the
'hands-down' most modern nuclear weapons and nuclear simulation
technology to maintain these weapons.

A sad example of our political system in progress IMO.

<end rant>