OT You want underreported news...

You want underreported news of the year...

How about the US Senate voting down the 'Nuke test ban' treaty THE DAY AFTER
the worlds most unstable nuclear power undergoes a military coup! A country
that has already voiced support for the treaty IF the US had ratified
it...

My God! Talk about politicians playing with our lives!

God I hate politicians!

SC (a pissed-off Texan)

I'd hardly call it underreported since the whole sordid affair has been over
the news for two weeks. Los

> UsClintons@aol.com wrote:

> You want underreported news of the year...

> From: Los [mailto:los@cris.com]

It isn't really much of a treaty.

> UsClintons@aol.com wrote:

I have two big problems with the treaty:

1. It stops any use of nuclear explosions in space, for any reason.

Article III, Section 1, Para c: "(c) To prohibit, in conformity with
international law, natural persons possessing its nationality from undertaking
any such activity anywhere."

Thus, it completely bans any work on Orion type ships, and any work on some
possible fusion rickets that are nothing but a directed, continuous fusion
explosion, since it bans "all other nuclear explosions."

2.  It really doesn't ban anything, since there is an opt-out clause:
Article IX:

"ARTICLE IX DURATION AND WITHDRAWAL 1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited
duration.

2. Each State Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the
right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events
related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme
interests.

3. Withdrawal shall be effected by giving notice six months in advance to all
other States Parties, the Executive Council, the Depositary and the United
Nations Security Council. Notice of withdrawal shall include a statement of
the extraordinary event or events which a State Party regards as jeopardizing
its supreme interests. "

IOW - anyone can opt out with six months notice, for any reason *they*
determine jeopardizes their supreme interests.

> > A country

Except that the government that voiced support no longer exists.

> > My God! Talk about politicians playing with our lives!

Don't they always?

> > God I hate politicians!

Agreed!

ObFT: Are their any agreements amongst the FT star nations about naval force
size? Force Useage (no nukes, bioweaps, etc)? Maybe agreements
similar to the Washington Naval Treaty are/have been in effect.

 -- vargr1                                              UPP-8D9B85 --
The three principle virtues of a good programmer   |

> > I'd hardly call it underreported since the whole

Considering the scope of the tready and the length of time it took to get such
a tready and the effect its loss will have COUPLED with the coup in Pak.
happening at the same time...Massively underreported IMO

> It isn't really much of a treaty.

Funny, most of the rest of the world seems to think so...

> 1. It stops any use of nuclear explosions in space,

This is already banned for both the US and all former USSR republics. It was
covered in a tready signed a long time ago (mid 60s I think). Still in force
as far as I know. The new tready would not change the net effect on the US one
bit. It would just attempt to make OTHER countries abide by the same 'rules'.

> 2. It really doesn't ban anything, since there is an

Any tready of such a massive scope would have a clause of this sort.
IIRCC this was inserted with US support/insistance.

<start rant>

Fact is this tready is the best anyone could hope to see in the next decade or
so. It took a LONG time to get this one. And Republicans voted it down because
they are still pissed at 'Billy'.

Unverifiable they claim? Give me a break! If this is true then they need to
stop ALL other business and give MASSIVE amounts of money to the CIA, NEC and
other agencies of the sort to get their @#$! together. I find it hard to
beleive that the network of 'spy' satilites the US has
could not detect the massive X-Ray burst an atomic explosion produces.

The US stockpile would not be 'maintainable' they say? Funny, the rest of the
nuclear club has no problem with this. And the US has the
'hands-down' most modern nuclear weapons and nuclear simulation
technology to maintain these weapons.

A sad example of our political system in progress IMO.

<end rant>

> From: UsClintons@aol.com [mailto:UsClintons@aol.com]

You mean the *governments* of those others countries think so...

Doesn't mean they're right.

> > 1. It stops any use of nuclear explosions in space,

But this rule is wrong. Why not take the opportunity to change it?

> > 2. It really doesn't ban anything, since there is an

Doesn't matter. It still leaves a gaping hole in it.

<rant deleted>

I really don't care why the Repubs rejected it, Dems supported it, or the
political infighting around it. I made my own decision from reading the
actual treaty.  Like most treaties/laws, it's mostly a 'feel good'
measure.

vargr1                                                   UPP-8D9B85
---------------------------- Omnia dicta fortiora, si dicta latina.

> UsClintons@aol.com wrote:

> How about the US Senate voting down the 'Nuke test ban' treaty THE DAY

This may not quite be on a par with the US Congressional refusal to ratify
President Wilson's treaty regarding the League of Nations in 1919, but in this
Damn Furriner's opinion it's close. Let's hope the consequences aren't as
serious.

> This may not quite be on a par with the US Congressional refusal to

This is kinda silly. How many wars have scraps of paper stopped? And how

many agreements have stopped weapons development? Get over it... and talk
about the Game;)

> At 10:30 AM 10/15/99 PDT, you wrote:

Better yet, let's relate the topic to the game! Is it hypocritical of us to
whine and moan about the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty being not being passed,
when we play a game that simulates/advocates/glorifies the use of these
very weapons?

> This is kinda silly. How many wars have scraps of paper

Simulates, not advocates. The thing you learn by playing wargames is:

It's A Damn Good Thing This Isn't For Real, As Otherwise I'd Have Way Too Many
"We Regret To Inform You" Letters To Write.

The other thing you learn is:

Or My Boss Would Have To Write One For Me.

The people I know who are most serious about avoiding war are the ones who've
been out at the sharp end. Contrast
that with our draft-dodging President, who launches raids to
divert media attention from his Scandal-of-the-Month.

> Better yet, let's relate the topic to the game! Is it

        I agree w/ everything you said (esp. the part about our "friend"
Bill). I just thought it could turn into a nice, reasoned discussion; rather
than the whining and crying that had previously characterized this OT thread.
And I at least vaguely movd 0n-topic  ;-)

Re this treaty issue. I have one thing to say. Did the washington treaty

(which essentiall tried to limit a simiar sort of race) do any good what

so ever at limiting the production of battle ships, cruisers and destroyers?

If you don't know about this history, then look it up before you gripe about
the recent senate action.

In a message dated Mon, 18 Oct 1999 1:39:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Ryan M Gill <monty@arcadia.turner.com> writes:

> Re this treaty issue. I have one thing to say. Did the > washington

You really don't know what you are talking about do you? Why would anyone even
try to compare these two treadies? One was a mainly a restriction on the SIZE
of battleships. The other is a tready to ban TESTING of nuclear weapons and
has nothing to do with production whatsoever! If you can't see the difference
between the two types of treadies then perhaps you should "...look it up
before you gripe..."

OTHO perhaps you should "look it up" anyway. Because to answer your question
again (I beleive I already stated this in a previous email), YES. Yes, as a
matter of fact the Washington tready did EXACTLY what the crafters of the
tready enteneded. Do you even know what that was?
I don't think so.  Their main over-riding consern had nothing to do with
stopping a global arms race for the sake of 'world peace'. Perhaps that is
what your high school History teacher told you, but that is not the case. No,
it had every thing to do with money. None of major powers that signed wanted
to spend the MONEY a global naval arms race would cost considering the
(possible) unlimited size of the new class of battleships being produced.

So, yes the tready did work, exactly as crafted. None of the singnatory
countires violated the tready with the single exception of Germany and its
construction of the Bismark (Japan did not sign). That's it. That is all the
tready was SUPPOSE to do and it did it (for the most part), understand?

Now what that 90 year old weapon size limitation tready has to do with a test
ban on 21 century nuclear weapons I don't know...

> If you don't know about this history, then look it up before you gripe

> about the recent senate action.

Yeah, nice advice why don't you take it.

SC

SC Flamed:

> You really don't know what you are talking about do you? Why would
<SNIP>

Since you started this you should be more careful. It's treaties, not
treadies.I guess you don't know what you're talking about do you?

> OTHO perhaps you should "look it up" anyway. Because to answer your
Yes, as a matter of >fact the Washington tready did EXACTLY what the crafters
of the tready >enteneded. Do you even know what that was? I don't think so.
 Their main over->riding consern had nothing to do with stopping a
global arms race for the sake of >'world peace'. Perhaps that is what your
high school History teacher told you, but >that is not the case. No, it had
every thing to do with money. None of major >powers that signed wanted to
spend the MONEY a global naval arms race would >cost considering the
(possible) unlimited size of the new class of battleships being >produced.
<snip>

Did you ever think that is exactly what this treaty is trying to accomplish?
For most of the countries of the world an atomic weapon is just as costly as a
battleship, was to the major powers, with as much to lose getting into a
costly "nuclear arms race" as back then. The "nuclear free" sugar coating is
just so people think this pile of garbage is thought of as a good treaty,
without looking at the more obscure aspects of the thing, which as usual are
the more important parts. The very fact that it bans nukes in space is enough
for me to give it thumbs down. Much less the verification parts of it.

> Now what that 90 year old weapon size limitation tready has to do with

<snip>

Battleships were the nukes of their day, the arm of decision, rightly or

wrongly. The fact is that merely building them was the early 20th century
version of the MX missile project, causing controversy and
counter-plans by
the builders adversary, EXACTLY what this treaty is trying to do, but won't.
Testing simply by computer won't be enough to keep the arsenal of nuclear
weapons current. As you can easily find out by reading a book about them,
nukes are tricky things, and very hard to design. I for one don't want to need
one and not have it work because it wasn't tested, just simulated on
computers. You get all sorts of nasty suprises, like it doesn't work, or

works WAY too well. No thanks.

So, please don't discount someones historical parallel, you would be suprised
how the same things come around again and again, in different forms. And

please let's take this off the list. If you want to respond, do it in person,
and let's get back to talking about important stuff! :-)

John