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

Dave Ings wrote:
> I certainly understand why no sane person wants wacko states in possession
> of nuclear weapons.
>

Such as say the SU under Uncle Jo Stalin or the PRC under Mao?

> But can someone here explain to me by what right (other than might) the
> "international community" has to enforce their point of view
upon Iran,
> especially since numerous prominent members of that community have large
> nuclear weapons caches of their own and have shown no particular interest in
> disarming.
>

Indeed. If nukes are so bad them how come......

> Again I don't quarrel with the objective from a humanist perspective, but
> there seems to be more than a touch of hypocrisy here.

Chuckle. It's only going to get worse as people discover that E=MC2 is in
the history books & ain't exactly cutting edge tech no more....&
what with hydro-carbon prices on the rise....more countries....etc.

I repeat though, the countries to watch are those with
rocket/"space" programs. A nuke w/o transport is simply an
expensive liability.

Next...it will be banning countries from "space research". In
case you think I'm joking consider South Africa. They wanted to keep their
nuclear power plants etc so....the "international community" made
em scrap their rocket program entirely. They could have been launching
cheap satellites etc for purely civie use but....

http://www.npec-web.org/Essays/Essay9309%20Sokolski%20-%20South%20Africa%20Rock
et%20Program.pdf

But hey we couldn't let some black african former "liberation
movement" types keep their hands on nukes & rockets now could we?

Adam

Adam

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