Comments:Protesters serenade Lockheed Martin outside firm's UK HQ
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
Slanted article
[edit]This article presents the view that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is being frankly violated, when the actual situation is much less clear. The treaty covers creation of nuclear weapons, not more efficient systems by which existing weapons might be delivered. 209.30.92.75 (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- And is that, in itself, not creation of new nuclear weapons? You're dealing with radioactive material, a bomb from the 1950s would, today, be useless. The fissile material has to regularly be extracted and reprocessed into new weapons. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Useless?! To you, maybe, but do you have any idea what N. Korea would pay for one from any decade that actually worked? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, North Korea would pay for one, working or not. They would be far, far closer to material they could use without mucking about building thousands of hi-tech centrifuges. That wasn't the point I was making; it was that you are perpetually creating new weapons because they have a limited shelf life. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)