Re: "Ratification of the CTBT would advance prospects for the treaty's
global entry into force and put additional pressure on North Korea and Iran to
comply."Yeah -- I'm sure the Grand Ayatullah and Peerless
Leader Kim Jong Un will feel great pressure to abandon their nuclear aims by a
US surrender on the issue.Where do liberals come up with this stuff?
Ratify the treaty. Because the best way to pressure the Iranians and North
Koreans is with international support--treaty ratification would keep the
Re: ". . . the best way to pressure the Iranians and North Koreans is with
international support . . . ."You mean that international
support that built their reactors for them?Yeah. That'll be
Ratification would mean further isolation of Iran and NOK, a good thing.
If we drop our weapons, Iran and North Korea will do the same??? Naive!Somehow I think that if we drop our weapons, we will find ourselves simply
looking at the other end of their weapons. I have read the words and
works of these leaders. I am not about to drop my weapons.I think a
better tactic would be to fly a rocket test from the US and blow it up right
over both those countries.
@procuradorfiscal (a TAD Procurement Specialist, perhaps?)So, you
think resuming nuclear weapons testing (with its associated downwind problems)
is a good idea?We already have enough high-tech nuclear warheads
with enough total nuclear yield capacity to annihlate a significant portion of
the planet's population; we have advanced delivery systems that undergo
improvement on a regular basis; and, we have advanced ABM systems that also
undergo improvement on a regular basis . . . so, what would be the point?A single, fully-armed Ohio-class SSBN (with 24 Trident II missiles, each
with four 475 kt MIRV warheads) would be enough to significantly exceed the
entire North Korean nuclear arsenal. Same goes for Iran.So again I
ask, what would be the point in resuming U.S. nuclear weapons testing?Are you really serious about this, or are you just being contrarian because
you like pushing the buttons of the left-leaning denizens here in the DN
Re: "So, you think resuming nuclear weapons testing (with its associated
downwind problems) is a good idea?"I admit ignorance on the
topic. I've heard scientists indicate that some testing is necessary to
validate life cycle data and assumptions. I've heard others suggest virtual
testing eliminates the need.The basis of my opposition to the treaty
is the same as for my opposition to ALL meaningless liberal symbology -- it does
no identifiable good, and, given the exigencies of the immutable law of
unintended consequences, could wreak serious mischief.It seems a
simple risk/benefit analysis -- no identifiable good + some risk of bad = why
take the chance?Liberals inexplicably see WAY more value in
symbolism than real people.
procuradorfiscal,"no identifiable good + some risk of bad = why
take the chance?"Funny, that's the equation I use to form
my opposition to nuclear testing.
procuradorfiscal,I appreciate your reasoned and articulate response
(it did contain a bit of snarkiness regarding liberalism, but I won't
condemn you for being honest about your feelings on the matter).I
think we both can agree that it would be undesirable for our nation's
knowledge base regarding nuclear weapons to become stagnant; but I think that we
both would also agree that it is highly desirable and likely achievable to
advance that knowledge base without conducting nuclear detonations.Regarding the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, I would say that it has
both symbolic and practical, tangible value. In the cases of North Korea and
Iran, it is largely symbolic, though I agree with others that it does increase
the pressure on them from the international community; it also puts some pessure
on India, Pakistan, and Israel to act responsibly. With regard to the rest of
the world, it is a much more tangible commitment to nuclear nonproliferation.
Ratification of the CNTBT costs us little or nothing, and if it helps, even
marginally, to contain the spread of nuclear weapons technology, then I would
say that it is worth it.Just my $0.02 . . .
procuradorfiscal: "Liberals inexplicably see WAY more value in symbolism
than real people." [emphasis in original]Ahem...Minute
Man ProjectOpposition to CDC research on gun violenceWand
ultrasounds for women seeking abortionsUtah claiming title to federal
landsThe Zion Curtain to protect impressionable childrenOpposition
to the contraceptive mandateMandatory gun ownership proposals
(Springville, La Verkin)Flag desecration constitutional amendmentDrill, Baby, DrillFrom my cold dead fingersDon't Tread on
Meetc.The phenomenon of advancing symbolism over substance is
a basic human character trait not confined to any political ideology. Nobody
has a monopoly on it, just as no ideology has a monopoly on stupid. We are more
cognizant of it in others and tend to be blind to it in ourselves (motes and
beams, and all that), especially in our current highly politicized environment.
I admit it's much more fun to play the curmudgeonly cynic and stereotype
those who disagree as naive simpletons, but such putdowns and clever ripostes
are no substitute for reasonable discussion (although I also must admit you do
it with a particularly stylish flair). There's plenty of shallowness to go
around. We all drink from the same well.
@Christian 24-7"I think a better tactic would be to fly a rocket
test from the US and blow it up right over both those countries."No doubt Jesus would advocate the same thing. I am glad someone who proclaims
to follow his teachings 24-7 is able to state them so eloquently.