[B5JMS] ATT: jms Why do you oppose a war agaist Iraq?

[b5jms-admin at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: dodobrd16 at aol.com (DodoBrd16)
Date: 22 Jan 2003 15:48:26 GMT
Lines: 20

"I think it is hyopcritical of the U.S. to demand that other countries
disarm when we do not do likewise."
___________________________________


http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/forces.htm

I recommend that you study the subject further, if you read the chart on the
bottom you can clearly see that the US nuclear force has decreased over the
years.

Also I would like to point out that you cannot really count our bomber force as
a nuclear delivery platform since, as of the last 10 years or so, our bomber
force has been primarily used as a conventional delivery vehicles. Mind you, at
first they were concieved as only a nuclear delivery force. 

The above proves that we have been dissarming our nuclear force.

If I am mistaken, please feel free to point out the mistakes.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 22 Jan 2003 18:57:05 GMT
Lines: 24

>I recommend that you study the subject further, if you read the chart on the
>bottom you can clearly see that the US nuclear force has decreased over the
>years.

The study you cite was in 1998, talking about where things will be in 1999.  So
it's WAY out of date.

Also, the Bush administration has stated publicly that it intends to awaken and
expand its work on nuclear devices in warfare.  The statement included more
work on tactical nukes, the development of bunker-buster nukes designed to
irradiate areas deep underground, and other niceties.  And it may return to a
more rigorous schedule of underground nuclear testing.


 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)