From: Adam 

Geo. wrote:
> "Adam" <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the
field.near the bridge"> wrote
> in message news:45eb3b75{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>> I think it's bollox. The US should be reducing warheads as per the NPT &
>> as such if a warhead fails some tests then ......retire it.
>
> Reducing yes, eliminating nuclear weapons is not possible, the genie
> cannot be put back in the bottle.

Hum. If so then the NPT is dead.

There are easy steps which could be taken e.g.

"No more nuclear secrets" where that includes the nuclear powers.
i.e. every warhead accounted for (inc yield) in a public register & the
geographic location of said warhead marked.

Bring all the subs into port & make sure the IAEA can account for the
whereabouts of every nuclear warhead.

Then steadily move to dismount the w/h from their launchers.

Then move to disassemble the warheads while keeping a national minimum
holocaust (say 20 weapons) of assembled (but not mated to a launcher)
warheads.

Put all warheads once at this stage under 24x7 surveillance by the public
i.e. internet webcams + "UN net" webcams for the
"powers"/sovereign country govs to use to monitor.

If tensions rise then countries can mate the w/h'es with a delivery
vehicle(s) but that would be done under the full glare of the world's
sight.

It can be done however the nuclear powers are mucho like any other dabbling
with the nucleus in that they love their nuclear secrecy. It is nowadays
for no real purpose except to make mil types feel important.

Steadily you could get down to 20 assembled warheads in monitored sheds for
each nuclear power.

However that would mean no more nuclear secrets period. That would include
the US, Israel, Russia etc.



> The best solution is something like
> US/Russia/China maintaining some nukes so that they keep each other in
> line then all the other countries signing protection agreements with at
> least two of them each so nobody attacks any other country with impunity.
>

Nah that's bollox. Reality is that the only "always available"
carbon free power source is nuclear which means that more & more
countries are going to get nuke power stations. From there it's a short
step to the bomb (esp if one masters the fuel cycle & get to keep the
used fuel rods which are replete with Plut etc.


> The only other likely solution is for most countries to maintain a
> nuclear arsenal which is more likely to result in one being either
> stolen or used accidentally.
>

Indeed. But that's the reality of the choice. either nukes are steadily
made to go or more & more countries will go nuclear.


> Newer designs reduce the potential for either theft or accidental use
> and make maintenance safer.
>

Accidental use maybe but theft no. Wrt safer for maintenance.. nah that's
bollox too as the safest thing is as they come up on the register....retire
& disassemble them.


Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5