
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >Inquiring minds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Incorrect. The Outer Space Treaty prohibits most military activities on >>> the surfaces of "celestial bodies", and forbids stationing of weapons of >>> mass destruction in space, but says nothing about military activities in >>> general in space. >>Oh please...Just about everytool used in spacecraft construction, and >>every component on a spacecraft are listed on the US's WMD list. Even >>35% H2O2 is listed as a WMD. >The US's "WMD list" is an irrelevant joke. The *international* definition >of "weapons of mass destruction" -- the one that applies to treaties -- is >nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, period. Do you know of a treaty or other formal agreement which specifies this definition? I've never seen such a thing, which apparent gap fosters no small ammount of confusion in discussions like this. And I'd quibble about your "period". AIUI, "WMD" is preferred over "NBC" as a hedge against some smartass coming up with something comparable in effect but based on fundamentally new technology. But yes, the consensus definition of "WMD" among people who aren't trying to obfuscate some dubious bit of politics is "Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, and if someone invents an antimatter bomb next year we'll add it to the list". Since the antimatter bomb wasn't invented last year, anyone using "WMD" to point at anything less than "NBC", is trying to disengage rational thought and observation w/re some matter you probably want to look at closely and thoughtfully. -- *John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, * *Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" * *Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition * *White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * for success" * *661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |