John Clark wrote:
>
> Brian D Williams <talon57@well.com> Wrote:
>
> > Everyone continues to ignore the fact that the antimissle defense
> > is not designed to counter an all out attack by a major power, but
> > a small attack by a rogue power.
>
> Everyone continues to ignore the fact that ICBM's are not the problem,
> thermonuclear bombs are. A small attacker would have to be brain
> dead stupid to use an ICBM rather than a suitcase.
>
> To give you an idea of the loony priorities in Washington, the Clinton
> administration made an excellent deal with Russia, each side would
> destroy 50 tons of plutonium by burning it up in a reactor. Since it only
> takes about 10 pounds (not tons!) to make a bomb the world would
> undoubtedly be a far safer place if there were a100 tons less plutonium
> in it . However Bush wants to kill the idea, he says there is not enough
> money in the defense budget for it, but of course there is more than
> enough for a useless and unworkable star wars fantasy. Insane!
No, John, just pragmatic. That Clinton agreement with Russia is another
one of his political land mines. Burning up that much plutonium would
require the construction of some breeder nuclear plants (the sort of
reactors that Clinton cancelled). In order to comply with this Clinton
era agreement, he'd have to build these reactors, which would obviously
result in the left wingers making political hay about the "insane
policies of the Bush administration building more notorious bomb
building reactors" (since the same reactors you use to burn plutonium
also can be used to manufacture it). Think about it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:14 MDT