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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (560503)	4/13/2010 1:17:57 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578528

"That is rather uncertain" Nothing uncertain about it. The number of scenarios where nuclear is a better choice than conventional has been a shrinking pool for decades. Even the wide scale killing of cities isn't nearly as viable as it was in the 1950s. Which is what this treaty has addressed.

To: TimF who wrote (560503)	4/13/2010 9:41:52 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578528

>> On the balance I still think I can get behind these reductions, but the case is less clear. The problem is that it is precisely the wrong action to take at a time when we're trying to convince other countries to stop proliferation efforts. The Carter and Reagan years showed -- if nothing else -- that you don't reduce our exposure by being weak, and in fact, you need to become stronger. I'm not to concerned about these actions because I do believe it is a good thing to be getting control of as much HEU as we can. I'm sure we are paying through the nose for it, but that's okay (the previous policy, which was stupid, was for us to CHARGE countries for disposal). But it has to be a good thing. OTOH, a weak America with a weak president isn't a good thing IMO even if there is some reduction to go along with it.