Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Make a move for world Peace



p.s. the poll is the DOD's method of obtaining a hit list of its opponents.

Hugh Haskell wrote:

At 14:20 -0700 8/11/07, Bernard Cleyet wrote:

I'm very disappointed -- Perhaps I'm not very radical, but I think a
very small number of reliably deliverable nukes are necessary for
DETERRENCE. (I'm thinking in the tens number and that's the total
including MIRV'd ones.)

The pole cheats, as it's framed the question. Not, do we need thousand
of new ones, but do we need any. Do, someone, convince me we don't need
ANY.

bc, suspects the initial large no vote caused them to change the question.

Hugh, is this the question when you voted?: Are nuclear weapons still
vital for our defense (sic.)? NOT regarding reliable replacement.


To be honest, I'm not sure. I didn't read the question all that carefully--only enough to make sure which way I needed to vote, since I would have voted against new warheads, new weapons, or keeping our old weapons.

Here's my argument in a nutshell, why we don't need any nuclear weapons. The stated purpose of our nuclear arsenal is as a deterrent to other to use them against us. If we look around the world at those who have nuclear weapons (or want them real bad), only Iran and North Korea fall in the category of potential nuclear threats, and neither is in a position to threaten us directly (I'll leave aside the issues

cut