SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (9126)1/16/2006 7:31:14 PM
From: thames_sider  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 541739
 
4) They're thinking 20 years ahead to when their oil starts running low, or when burning it is too dangerous for the planet.

OK, unlikely, but both are possible. Maybe I'm biassed because that would be my motive <g>



To: one_less who wrote (9126)1/17/2006 6:45:56 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 541739
 
1) They don't need it and they are just interested in building weapons. That doesn't make sense given the number of nuclear development sites we believe they currently have under development around the country, which are way more than needed to build bombs.

I think it does make sense. If they have a lot of sites its harder to take them out. They probably learned from what happened to Osirak.

#3 also makes sense, and to a limited extent #2.

Tim


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News