Re[2]: MAHAN ready for a “nuclear free” debate?
January 2nd, 2009 From
>X-Errors-To:
>Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 21:20:04 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Sender: rickt@pop3.cris.com
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>From: rickt@cris.com (Eric Bergerud)
>Subject: Re: Re[2]: MAHAN ready for a “nuclear free” debate?
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
> >Bill Riddle wrote:
> >
> > >have some ocean front property in Maricopa County I would like to sell
> >you.>>>
> >
> >Amen to that. I know we had them aboard transiting the Bay to and from Mare
> >Island. And when those in SF were opposing homeporting MISSOURI > there on the
> >grounds of nukes aboard, what did they think was in all those CVs over at
> >Alameda NAS?
> >
> >John Snyder
> >John_Snyder@bbs.macnexus.org
> >
>I can testify to the fact that no one ever sighted a nuclear sub/carrier or
>warship of any time at the Berkeley pier since 1970, so the Bay Area’s
>primary Nuke Free Zone has safely safeguarded it’s citizenry. There was the
>little matter of the University’s connection with Livermore, but the “hot
>stuff” was outside the city limits.
>
>Ever since Periclean Greece democracies have like to pander to their public
>opinion as long as it does them no real harm. Denmark and NZ could say
>anything they liked because their governments were both insignificant and
>secrure in the knowledge that the US would defend them regardless of their
>policies. We see the same thing today in the land mine treaty. Dozens of
>governments who fully realize that their land forces almost certain never be
>used, and that the US can relied upon to pull regionial chestnuts out of the
>fire if things get ugly, are perfectly willing to sign a stupid treaty that
>almost by definition would help the problem they wish to face not a bit. The
>US, however, might well find itself in the position of NEEDING it’s army.
>Mines are a major weapons system, particularly in the defense, and I do hope
>Clinton shows enough courage to prevent the US from making an agreement that
>might well in the future kill US servicemen and precipitate military
>debacle. Ironically, if US ground forces were faced with route in a major
>confrontation, I believe we would use tactical nuclear weapons.
>Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930