sfp-2

Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 10:56:54 -0400
From: Eric Fawcett <fawcett@physics.utoronto.ca>
To: nScience for Peace listserver <sfp-net@chebucto.ns.ca>
cc: sPhillips Alan <aphil@icom.ca>
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <sfp-net-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>

next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 09:24:47 -0400
From: Alan Phillips <aphil@icom.ca>
To: Eric Fawcett <fawcett@physics.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Please post on lists.

Eric, Thank you for passing on this very informative and important
speech by Joseph Gerson.  Please post the following:

Re: Gerson speech.
Thanks to Eric for passing on this very informative and important speech
by Joseph Gerson. 

One good thing about U.S.A. is that a person can express such radical
disagreement with his government's policy, and have little fear of
reprisals.

Amid this fine analysis of the Asia-Pacific situation there is one
paragraph that bothers me seriously about the peace movement.  Gerson
said:
>  I should add a note about the second US use of depleted uranium weapons 
>in war. This is dangerous because of the apparent mid-term medical
>consequences and the poisoning of the environment. Even more dangerous may
>be its blurring of the fire break between nuclear and "conventional"
>weapons which provides a greater semblance of legitimacy to the possible
>launching of cataclysmic nuclear weapons by the USA or other countries in
>wartime.

It is the peace and environmental movements that are "blurring the fire
break" by writing and thinking of the use of uranium-nosed projectiles
as related to nuclear war.  It is as unrelated to a nuclear explosion as
is the use of radium (another uranium product) for treatment of
cancer.   There is no danger of the military of any nation confusing use
of uranium-nosed projectiles with nuclear war.

Governments are another matter:  if a lot of voters have had the
distinction blurred by the great emphasis that peace people are putting
on the alleged effects of uranium, then political leaders might come to
think they could get away with using a nuclear weapon or two on a "rogue
state".

Any evil effects of uranium projectiles (other than the immediate
effects of a direct hit) are minuscule compared with the other evil
effects of war with conventional weapons.

Alan Phillips.


next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects