AW: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proposed Rebuttal to the Laura WeldonArticleinbold Text (UNCLASSIFIED)

Borisky, Michael (Civ, ARL/ADLO) mborisky at
Fri Jan 25 11:50:44 CST 2008

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED 
Caveats: NONE

This is obvious to me and probably many others, but perhaps the reason that Russian and China are treated differently (and rightfully so) is because: they don't constantly and proudly threaten to irradiate certain other countries they don't like; they are concerned about consequences (like retaliation and death); and they don't have religion as their justification.   It is my opinion that as long as some threaten to eradicate their neighbors, don't care about their own survival, and kill in the name of god, the world must react to those threats and be gravely concerned about them having nuclear weapons.      

Mike Borisky
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at [mailto:radsafe-bounces at] On Behalf Of Steven Dapra
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 9:32 PM
To: radsafe at
Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proposed Rebuttal to the Laura WeldonArticleinbold Text

Jan. 24

         So far, I'm with Franz on this one.  The IAEA has no business imposing sanctions on anyone over bomb building.  Funny, isn't it, how the USSR could have all the nukes it wanted, along with a vast fleet of missiles to deliver them, and no one said anything -- including the IAEA.  The same goes for Communist China, and it's still a going concern (for anyone who might want to offer the excuse that the USSR is no more).  What goes for the IAEA also goes for the UN Security Council.  It's not running the world.

         Gary wrote:  "Iran is confident that once they possess just a few nuclear weapons, no one will dare to prevent them from making more."  The same could be said of the afore-mentioned and now defunct USSR, and the current regime in Peking.  In fact, I remember seeing a news item online in the last week or two wherein Putin said Russia might use nukes in the future in the need arose.  Something doesn't match up here.  Does Israel have The Bomb, or is it only fooling around still trying to separate enough U to build one?  (hint, hint)

Steven Dapra

At 08:05 PM 1/24/08 -0600, garyi at wrote:
>On 25 Jan 2008 at 1:03, Franz Schönhofer wrote:
>. The reluctance of the IAEA
>to impose sanctions on Iran is a very good sign, that Iran has until 
>now fulfilled all conditions of the IAEA - no other country is 
>therefore entitled to demand whatsoever.
>That reluctance is by no means any indication of compliance.  IAEA, 
>which has my best wishes, could sooner suspend the motion of the earth 
>around the sun than make Iran comply with any directive.  IAEA  (and 
>the EU in general) is a source of derision for many Iranians, exactly 
>because they repeatedly defy Security Council sanctions and ignore 
>deadlines. Then they play a PR game and pretend to be the offended 
>No, I imagine that the real reason that no effective sanctions have 
>been imposed is that Russia and China have too much to lose.  And if it 
>is nationalistic thinking you hate, cast your gaze upon Iran (the 
>ruling regime, that is).  Most of the world knows what game is being 
>played there.  Iran is confident that once they possess just a few 
>nuclear weapons, no one will dare to prevent them from making more.
>Gary Isenhower
>Gary Isenhower, M.S.

You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED 
Caveats: NONE

More information about the RadSafe mailing list