From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

Geo. wrote:
> "Adam" <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the
field.near the bridge"> wrote
> in message news:45ea9f50$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>>> Designing a more effective bomb might be evil, designing a safer bomb
>>> isn't.
>
>> Safer? As in a bomb wot doesn't go bang?
>
> Yes, I'm sure the arming sequence has been upgraded but
> safer as in after 30 years in storage it doesn't glow in the dark..
>
> Geo.

Oh so safer for the instant holocaust wielders?

Zyklon B doesn't keep?


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.

Britain does not have to spend any more money on trident. It just needs to
dock it's subs.

We have fylingdales & we have far northern scottish sealochs.

We can position them as SLBM while the sub is tied up in some secured berth.

Position each sub at least a blast width apart in different sealochs.

Why precisely in this age of big/nuclear power loveliness & harmony....
not at least bring all subs to port?

Adam

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