Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: michael97123 who wrote (147732)	10/13/2004 10:56:16 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) of 281500

Here's a nice chronology and I believe addresses the points...I would think there should be a link in there somewhere for the actual treaty. If not, you should be able to find it as easily as I can. idds.org Major points on the treaty...no verification....you'll see that in the text. Destruction of warheads. None required. The biggest loophole of them all. They only count "operational warheads". If a nuclear capable sub pulls into port and is declared in "maintenance", none of the warheads count because they are not "operatonal", they're in "storage". There is no scheduled reduction, i.e, x warheads by Date 1; y warhead by Date 2. To comply, all you have to do is meet the limits in the split second before the treaty expires. To do that all you have to do is declare a sufficient number of warheads to be non-operational to be below the limits. It's so utterly ridiculous I can't imagine anyone even bothering to do that. A second later the treaty is null and void. jttmab

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next