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

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Jerry Gamblin wrote:

> > 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.
>
> He states as a fact that only "6 nukes" would be needed to blow up all 
> of Russia. I would like to see some facts to back that up.  According to 
> the CIA the land mass of russia is 16,995,800 sq km.
>
> 16,995,800/6= 2,832,633
>
> My guess is that he was just talking out of his ass because I doubt we 
> have a nuke that can blow up three million square kilometers.  I don't 
> disagree with him that we have more than enough nukes and they should be 
> dismantling some of them but starting your ad with a lie isnt a good way 
> to get people with half a brain on your side.


I also noticed that peculiarity in his argument.  Why six?  I really don't 
know where that number came from, but if I were in a generous mood, I 
would say that 6 hydrogen bombs would take out all of their major cities. 
But I don't know and can't justify that number!

Mike

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