At this point in time, our computational abilities are good enough that testing
is no longer needed. The scientists employed by the Department of Energy
already perform very high quality simulations of nuclear devices. In fact, they
are so good that there is no longer a need for actual tests.
With over 5,000 tests in the Nevada desert, enough is enough or like other
children do they just like to "hear the boom."
Radiation is a serious health risk, but many more people in Utah have died of
tobacco related diseases than have died as downwinders. Neither is acceptable.
The only check the US has on Pakistan, North Korea and soon Iran is our nuclear
capability. Don't leave it up to scientists or the military? On whom shall
we depend for a rational policy, one trick pony anti-nuclear protesters? We call
medical Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) by that name because the original name
of Nuclear Magnetic Imaging was protested by those who wanted "no
I realize I'm not an "expert" like the people Beck has listed who
support the ban. But I think signing the ban would be a BIG mistake. With
what we know now, testing can be done in ways that are safe, such as underground
or otherwise. Without the U.S. nuclear arsenal, the world would be a much more
dangerous place, because rogue dictators would feel much freer to attack us and
other peaceful nations.Our nuclear arsenal needs updating, and
periodic testing is a vital part of that. Some of the "experts" say
testing is no longer necessary, but I'm very skeptical of that claim.
The decision to test on American soil or anywhere else in this world nuclear
weaponry should not be left to the military complex - and that includes
scientists. The effects of such testing that took the lives of so many in Utah
should always remain another example of "mans inhumanity to man."