On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:28:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

If the country also takes an
aggressive policy of amassing a large arsenal of weapons with the
intent to use them (domestically or otherwise), then I'd say that
qualifies as well.

We've been doing this since 1946. We supposedly stopped creating
chem/bio
weapons, but the nuclear arsenal continues to grow.

Really? Where did you hear that we are still building nukes? According
to the various START and SALT treaties, we should v'e been reducing
that stockpile.

Dave, this is disturbing. You continue to lie to me. You say you get your
information from a variety of news sources, but you are ignorant of so
much
going on around you.


So it's your assertion that all those nookular arms reduction talks
were nothing more than smoke and mirrors, and that we're actually
covertly preparing for armageddon?

Maybe the sky really IS falling in your world.......

The nuclear reduction talks are ancient history, Dave.

What do you consider "ancient"? It's only been a few years. I recall
some talk rather recently about some disagreement with Russia about
the current state of those treaties.

I'm talking about
current events, things which have begun happening over the past couple of
years. Did you read any of the articles? Do you want me to obtain
information for you directly from a legislator's office?

That would certainly be more credible that the rantings of a so-called
"journalist" with his own not-so-hidden agenda, and personal bias.
Heck, you can find almost anything on the internet. Anyone can put up
a web site (Hell, even I have one). It doesn't mean that the
information is true.

I have seen no evidence that the U.S. has picked up the arms race in
earnest again. It makes no sense. For one thing, the USSR is no longer
a threat. That paranoia, which fed both the arms race and the cold
war, is gone. Our main reason for amassing all of those nukes in the
first place, is gone. We have a different relationship with the
Chinese, which makes their threat seem less sinister or as likely to
generate the same paranoia. Who else is left? What other country can
hold a candle to our military potential, as it currently stands? So
tell me again why we need to build more nukes.

We are probably performing maintenance and upgrades to the weapons
that we currently have, in order to improve their reliability and
accuracy, should we find ourselves in the unfortunate position of
needing to use them. Other older, and obsolete, weapons are also
likely to have been replaced with newer and more advanced ones. I
don't feel that this qualifies as "stockpiling nukes".

Dave