From: "Rich Gauszka" 


"Adam" <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the
field.near the bridge"> wrote in message news:4418861e$1{at}w3....
> Rich Gauszka wrote:
>> "Adam"
<""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near the
bridge"> wrote
>> in
>> message news:441877e3{at}w3....
>>
>>>Rich Gauszka wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Phil Payne"
 wrote in message
>>>>news:4418545b$1{at}w3....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>So will the new buzzword for civil war be 'revolution' ?
>>>>>
>>>>>They've renamed napalm and torture to get around
international laws.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Or got around treaties by redefining the word 'test'?
>>>>
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4805768.stm
>>>>Britain signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in
1996 and is
>>>>observing a moratorium on tests though the treaty has not come into
>>>>force
>>>>yet. So the testing of new warheads by explosion is in effect banned.
>>>>However, there have been reports recently in the Sunday Times that
>>>>Britain
>>>>has been developing a new warhead which does not need testing by
>>>>detonation.
>>>>Called the "Reliable Replacement Warhead", it
could be tested by
>>>>computer
>>>>instead.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Computer simulation & testing of compoentns is not testing nuclear
>>>devices.
>>>
>>>Adam
>>
>>
>> Crap - it's a just yet another method to get around the essence of a
>> treaty
>> by countries that are to deceitful just to scrap it as they can use
>> portions
>> in an attempt to keep others in line.. We're doing to also. It's just an
>> attempt to talk out of both sides of one's mouth. Only gullible neocons
>> will
>> believe in it's validity.  Don't do as I do - do as I say.
>>
>>
> Nope. It's not testing in the sense the treaty was written to ban. Big
> thumps underground etc. Atmospheric testing was already a no no & in
> this age of vulnerable electronics it has steadily become impossible
> anyway.
>
> Everyone knew that while people have them they will need rebuilding if
> the numbers are to be maintained. The Zyklon B must be refreshed
> periodically.
>
> The point of the NPT was that we should have started talks (at the very
> least) involving all nuclear capable states wrt global disarmament. This
> is looking steadily less likely post-Iraq & thus the NPT is dead as a
> dodo. If it's used as simply a tool of the "nuclear-rich"
countries then
> it will not be a law at all & most will simply leave the treaty.
>
> Adam

That's the point. Any treaty that  just favors just the nuclear rich will
fail. Why carry on this pretense? Might as well just go and threaten any
smaller country that wishes to join the big boys - ooops wait we're doing
that now - never mind

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