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

[Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>]

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.



Hugh Haskell wrote:

> I don't usually send out proselytizing e-mails, but this one is too 
> important to pass up. One of my alert lists has just sent out the 
> following announcement:
>
>  
>
> > Parade magazine is publishing a piece on the Reliable Replacement 
> > Warhead, and questioning the necessity of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. 
> > This is wonderful news for reaching a large mainstream audience. 
> > Don't miss your chance to take the informal Parade poll on nuclear 
> > weapons by clicking on the story link below and voting.     
> >
> > <http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2007/edition_08-12-2007/Intelligence_Report>http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2007/edition_08-12-2007/Intelligence_Report
> >    
>
> Everyone needs to read this short note and then vote in their poll on 
> whether we need to waste more money (about $150 B) on 5-10,000 new 
> nuclear warheads for our nuclear arsenal over the next 20 years or 
> so. as of the time I am sending this, the vote in 93% against and 7% 
> for, but only 72 people have voted so far (this was just released 
> this afternoon). We need to get as many people as possible voting to 
> keep the no vote percentage high.
>
> The fact that Parade is taking on this issue is a sign that even they 
> are not excited about this prospect. They tend to be somewhat 
> conservative, so this is significant.
>
> Please go to the web site and vote against the Reliable Replacement 
> Warheads program. Vote early. Vote often.
>
> Hugh
>