Mark, we don't usually see "eye to eye" on things of this nature, but I don't think you'd make something up.
The Greenpeace article says the Bush administration is "considering" the resumption of testing, but that is a far cry from "about to start doing it ourselves". It also goes on to state numbers for nuclear reductions which are promising. If we are going to have X number of weapons, I'd think it would be better if they were of the smaller types and not "city killers".
I'll be interested to hear that link from NPR, but this older version off Media Player on my work NT machine won't do the trick(I can't update to the most current version here for some reason), but I'll check it out at home.
I'm really not sure how they would destroy the warheads. Blowing them up isn't a really good option...lol. But the previous agreements reached are monitered by both sides.
There has been a change in the idea of the use of nukes since the end of the Cold War. A shift from ICBMs to smaller tactical nukes. Maybe this is part of the story, but since I haven't heard it I'll with hold judgement.
That said, the talks with Russia are still on reducing the total number of nuclear devises. The numbers talked most recently weren't as high as some hoped they would be, and the implimentation wasn't the same.
The policy of nuclear deterence is still the primary US policy, but I don't forsee the "nuclear option" being implimented. There is no positive aspect to the use of nuclear weapons.
Finally, at least we can account for all of our nukes. That can't be said of the former Soviet nuclear weapons. Of course, it can't be said for the US nuclear
delivery technology either.
[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]