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.

Technology Stocks : Stock Swap -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Prasanna L Soni who wrote (14061)	5/23/1998 2:44:00 PM
From: Patrick Slevin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17305

I usually prefer to be brief although I get carried away at times. So in brief, my concern as a citizen of Earth is proliferation with respect to nuclear devices. Whether it be Pakistan, India, the US or Burkina Faso. I don't believe responsible people assign India or anyone else to Third World status because of availability of nuclear weapons. I think it is more a question of a standard of living. I am not as familiar with India as you certainly are. I would venture a guess, however, that the standard of living for the broad population creates extremes not seen in most Euro countries, for example. As you say; the availability of efficient energy would aid countries such as India. However in the interim, my impression (again as an outsider who has not the facts, just an impression) is that if a significant part of the population has problems with the basics of food, clothing, and shelter then that is a Third World country. Is this the case or no, I am willing to be corrected.

To: Prasanna L Soni who wrote (14061)	5/27/1998 1:19:00 AM
From: Andrew Vance	Respond to of 17305

AV--An excellent and coherent reply by you which makes a great deal of sense. I feel enlightened about certain things that I was unaware of and you also pose an interesting perspective. A vast majority of what you presented I was aware of but never put it together in a fashion as you have presented. However, it was the independence through non violence that was part of my rationale in my diatribe. After succeeding through non violence, the "nuclear" road they have chosen to travel seemed abhorrent. Especially now with the Pakistanis about to do the same. I still stand behind my feelings and approach to this even though I view India in a slightly different perspective. The culture, history, wealth and education is vast and deep as you explained. Even though I believe the US should act as a global policeman and the US has been hypocritical in the past, I cannot disagree with your assessment that India has never gotten the respect it deserves in the global community. Your points are quite valid but it does seem a shame that the only way they believe they can get the attention they deserve or want is to become a potential nuclear bully. As the number of nations with the nuclear capability grow, the greater the chances it will be used either offensively or defensively. Worse yet, the chances of it falling into the wrong hands (terrorists) also increases. My comments and statements are directed out of fear as well as desire to eliminate nuclear weapons of mass destruction. No comments or statements were intended to malign the peoples of India. I drew the line on India not because it was India but because it was a new nuclear threat. When was the last time a device was set off or a nation entered the "nuclear family". I would have made the same comments if it was Japan, Sweden, Italy, or Algeria. Again, no offense was meant to the people but rather the nuclear situation. Andrew