Are we beginning to see the secondaries? Libya to abandom WMD

The issue that I am raising is not that the US has undeclared active WMD
programs but the double standards used by the US in dealing with other
countries. There is a presumtion of guilt when dealing with states that the
US does not like, and a presumption of innocence when dealing with US
friends. The history of the last 50 years does not justify any such
presumptions. The international oversight process (through organisations
such as IAEA) should apply equally to all states, and when the US funds new
development into low yield tactical nuclear weapons (as is happening now) it
should have the same challenges as when North Korea is developing nuclear
weapons for a deterent program.

David



Let me ask you this. Would *you* be okay with the idea of North Korea
or Iran having nukes? Or maybe Syria? Pretty much all of the
countries who have them (with the possible exception of India and
Pakistan) are responsible, stable nations. What do you do when an
ayatolla gets a wild hair up his ass and lets a terrorist group steal
a nuke (plausible denyability and all that)? Would you choose a
stable world or an instable one? If the major powers all scrapped
their nukes how do you know some other country isn't going to build
them anyway? International inspections? What if the country tells
the UN to kiss off? Sanctions? We saw how well they hurt Saddam. Do
you think no nukes would mean less war and if so how do you justify
that view?

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

The issue that I am raising is not that the US has undeclared active WMD
programs but the double standards used by the US in dealing with other
countries. There is a presumtion of guilt when dealing with states that
the
US does not like, and a presumption of innocence when dealing with US
friends. The history of the last 50 years does not justify any such
presumptions. The international oversight process (through organisations
such as IAEA) should apply equally to all states, and when the US funds
new
development into low yield tactical nuclear weapons (as is happening now)
it
should have the same challenges as when North Korea is developing nuclear
weapons for a deterent program.

David



Let me ask you this. Would *you* be okay with the idea of North Korea
or Iran having nukes? Or maybe Syria? Pretty much all of the
countries who have them (with the possible exception of India and
Pakistan) are responsible, stable nations. What do you do when an
ayatolla gets a wild hair up his ass and lets a terrorist group steal
a nuke (plausible denyability and all that)? Would you choose a
stable world or an instable one? If the major powers all scrapped
their nukes how do you know some other country isn't going to build
them anyway? International inspections? What if the country tells
the UN to kiss off? Sanctions? We saw how well they hurt Saddam. Do
you think no nukes would mean less war and if so how do you justify
that view?

My arguement is that I do not believe that in the current world (post
Mutually Assured Destruction) no WMD's have any warfighting credibility. In
terms of the international inspections the act of telling the IAEA to stop
inspections is the trigger for more severe international pressure (whatever
that may involve).

The stability of the current nuclear powers is an interesting note. The
Isreali gov't appears to have a policy of first use based on "percieved"
threat, while the US gov't is actively doing R&D on more "usable"
battlefield nuclear weapons. This is interesting when it is combined with
the new US policy of starting wars on the belief that the "other guy" might
be a threat to the USA in the near future!

I am more concerned of the approach taken by a super power who is reasonably
convinced (by things like the ABM system) that it can pre-emptively use
WMD's against minor pwers with little or no danger of a counter strike, than
I am by minor powers who fully understand that their first use of their
WMD's would lead to their inevitable distruction.

I believe that leaders of many states (e.g. North Korea) are very very evil,
and should not be supported in any way at all - I just do not believe that
they are stupid. Stupid evil dictators get killed off very quickly.

David

In article ,
Scott Ferrin writes:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:17:38 +0200, "David Nicholls"
wrote:



David


"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK,
Russia,
China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's moral
example!!!


The US, UK and Russia have all deactivated and are destroying their
Chemical &
Biological weapons.


In terms of the US removing their chemical weapons program they have stopped
the Chemical Weapon Convention proposed inspections of potential sites
wthout warning, because the US would not tolerate them. It also forced the
change of the head of the organisation because he did not realise that the
US was above suspicison!

Most of the chemical weapons the US has I wouldn't even dare to put on
a plane if it were up to me. They're OLD. We were going to build
binary munitions but I think it got canned. Also a place where they
destroy them (Dugway) is a few dozen miles away and there for a couple
years it was ALWAYS in the local news.

Erm, teh actual destrustion of the materials is taking place at
Johnston Island, which is in the missle of the Pacific. This of
course, has the advantage of there not being any neighbors to evacuate
if things go bad. It's also not someplace that's going to be too
adversely affected, either. Some parts are still a bit hot after a
Thor IRBM taking part in Operation Starfish (The high altitude Nuke
shots that pointed out the potential of high altitude EMP effects)
blew up on the pad.

The way they're doing it is pretty interesting. A super
high-temperature/high pressure furnace that breaks up all those nasty
molecules, and then consumes itself when it's finished, to avoid
residual contamination.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
Erm, teh actual destrustion of the materials is taking place at
Johnston Island, which is in the missle of the Pacific. This of
course, has the advantage of there not being any neighbors to evacuate
if things go bad. It's also not someplace that's going to be too
adversely affected, either. Some parts are still a bit hot after a
Thor IRBM taking part in Operation Starfish (The high altitude Nuke
shots that pointed out the potential of high altitude EMP effects)
blew up on the pad.

The way they're doing it is pretty interesting. A super
high-temperature/high pressure furnace that breaks up all those nasty
molecules, and then consumes itself when it's finished, to avoid
residual contamination.

--
Pete Stickney


They certainly plan to destroy the chemical weapons stored at Pueblo Army
Depot, Pueblo Colorado, as an in-place project as they do other places. I
believe the destruction facility at Dugway is already in place.

Tex Houston

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Scott Ferrin writes:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:17:38 +0200, "David Nicholls"
wrote:



David


"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK,
Russia,
China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's moral
example!!!


The US, UK and Russia have all deactivated and are destroying their
Chemical &
Biological weapons.


In terms of the US removing their chemical weapons program they have
stopped
the Chemical Weapon Convention proposed inspections of potential sites
wthout warning, because the US would not tolerate them. It also forced
the
change of the head of the organisation because he did not realise that
the
US was above suspicison!

Most of the chemical weapons the US has I wouldn't even dare to put on
a plane if it were up to me. They're OLD. We were going to build
binary munitions but I think it got canned. Also a place where they
destroy them (Dugway) is a few dozen miles away and there for a couple
years it was ALWAYS in the local news.

Erm, teh actual destrustion of the materials is taking place at
Johnston Island, which is in the missle of the Pacific. This of
course, has the advantage of there not being any neighbors to evacuate
if things go bad.

Not completely true. Another destruction facility is also nearing readiness
for use at Dugway, IIRC, and the Army signed Bechtel up to do a design/build
job at Richmond, Kentucky this year.

It's also not someplace that's going to be too
adversely affected, either. Some parts are still a bit hot after a
Thor IRBM taking part in Operation Starfish (The high altitude Nuke
shots that pointed out the potential of high altitude EMP effects)
blew up on the pad.

IIRC that was Starfish Prime?

Brooks


The way they're doing it is pretty interesting. A super
high-temperature/high pressure furnace that breaks up all those nasty
molecules, and then consumes itself when it's finished, to avoid
residual contamination.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Scott Ferrin writes:

Most of the chemical weapons the US has I wouldn't even dare to put on
a plane if it were up to me. They're OLD. We were going to build
binary munitions but I think it got canned. Also a place where they
destroy them (Dugway) is a few dozen miles away and there for a couple
years it was ALWAYS in the local news.

Erm, teh actual destrustion of the materials is taking place at
Johnston Island, which is in the missle of the Pacific. This of
course, has the advantage of there not being any neighbors to evacuate
if things go bad.

Different depots, different disposal sites; I believe in most cases it
will be on the depot grounds. Johnston Atoll was the pilot facility and
is in the process of being shut down if it isn't already done.

"John Keeney" wrote:

Different depots, different disposal sites; I believe in most cases it
will be on the depot grounds. Johnston Atoll was the pilot facility and
is in the process of being shut down if it isn't already done.

There's a big noise going on at Anniston, Alabama. The government spent
$1 billion building an incinerator, and some residents of the area are
suing to try and stop the process.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK,
Russia,
China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's moral example!!!

David
(from South Africa, the only country to independantly dismatle its
operational nuclear weapons program)

Didn't Sweden do that too?

"tadaa" wrote in message ...
It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK,
Russia,
China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's moral
example!!!

David
(from South Africa, the only country to independantly dismatle its
operational nuclear weapons program)

Didn't Sweden do that too?


This website might answer some questions. Certainly they could have built
one and had plans to be able to do so quickly if needed. It seems they never
actually built a bomb.
http://www.folkkampanjen.se/nwchap2.html#HD_NM_30
There was also a plan for the SAAB A36 nuclear bomber too.
http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text/saabcanc/

Nick

"Nick Pedley" wrote in message
...

"tadaa" wrote in message ...
It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK,
Russia,
China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's moral
example!!!

David
(from South Africa, the only country to independantly dismatle its
operational nuclear weapons program)

Didn't Sweden do that too?


This website might answer some questions. Certainly they could have built
one and had plans to be able to do so quickly if needed. It seems they
never
actually built a bomb.

Are you forgetting the Volvo 244?