Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] cost of maintaining unneeded weapons

["Jerry Gamblin" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On 8/2/06, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> Here's a little movie:
>
> http://www.truemajority.org/postcard/
>
> I would like to think that we can ignore the fact that this guy might be
> considered "a liberal" (horrors!) and all agree that he is right about
> this cost (assuming his numbers are right) being unnecessary and wasteful.
> I see no benefit in maintaining a vast arsenal of nukes.  There never was
> a benefit to having that many of them, but people thought, quite wrongly,
> that we should have many more than our enemies had.  It seems likely to me
> that the real reason for having so many bombs was that someone was selling
> them, and someone in government had a reason to give money to the seller.

Also after reading some more I think his 10,000 number is shaky at best:

According to  Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) declaration for
2003, the U.S. listed 5968 deployed warheads as defined by START:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

We also have the 2002 Sort Treaty that states we will get that down to
around 2000 warheads:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SORT

So I am now questioning his number of warheads that he states in his
ad, I like his ice cream though.

--
Thanks,

Jerry Gamblin

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion