From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Tue Feb 12 2002 - 00:37:38 MST
On 8 Feb 2002 at 0:27, L' Ermit wrote:
> [Hermit 3] Are you deaf to what the rest of the world has said about the
> unilateral abrogation of SALT or don't you care? <snip> While the number of
> missiles has decreased (largely due to the reduction in the number of
> boomers and completely ineffective fixed silos) in the last 15 years, the
> number of warheads has actually increased (due to increased deployment of
> MIRVs) (Jane’s and FAS). Reductions tend to be cost cutting driven (Senate
> Reports, FAS and Jane’s). <snip> The fact that the US has limited
> inspections (Senate record and US Law) and has unilaterally abrogated the
> world's major strategic arms limitation agreement (CIS and European analysis
> and comment, Jane’s and FAS) and failed to ratify any others (same) is
> hardly conducive persuading others to accept our bona fides.
>
> [Joe Dees 4] Total US warheads have decreased from a max of 50,000 to less
> than a quarter of that, and we are negotiating with Russia to drop them to
> less than 3000 apiece. As for the abrogation of SALT, while I do not agree
> with Son of Star Wars because I think that it spends a lot of money failing
> to protect us against a nonexistent threat, it is not a warhead-producing
> program. <snip>
>
> [Hermit 4]
> The US has never had 50,000 warheads, still less the ability to deliver that
> number and even your guess as to current levels is hopelessly inaccurate.
>
That was a max of 50, 000 held by all nations worldwide. Apparently, according
to your list, 70,000 would have been more accurate.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:43 MDT