Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (59040)	10/13/1999 10:19:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

You echo my thoughts. Until yesterday I was firmly against CTBT, until I heard it explained that ratifying CTBT could be used as a lever on some of the more junior thermonuclear powers. Making an atom bomb is a simple matter of combining plutonium and Internet. Making a good atom bomb is somewhat harder. Making a hydrogen bomb is technically very very hard. We've had a number of "yield failures" in nuke tests; this isn't spearfishing in a barrel. The strongest argument I have heard against CTBT is that it cannot be verified. But then ... why not cynically ratify it? After all, that wasn't a nuke test, and we're SHOCKED and not a small amount concerned that the Ambassador from ______ would voice such an unfounded and warlike suspicion.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (59040)	10/14/1999 12:21:00 AM
From: Krowbar	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

That makes 3 of us. It is not logical to not sign the test ban treaty. We have done all of the testing that we need to do, so it wouldn't hurt us at all. I think that they just wanted to hand Clinton a defeat. Del