Amos,

I do not believe that I have been harsh in the least instance. As you raised and therefore named this thread perhaps you could explain to me, in what way you believe that these people are heroic.

You state in your post immediately above this one, that they MAY LOSE thirty years of free living - Highly unlikely as the first charge (attempting to "injure, interfere with and obstruct the national defense of the United States," punishable by up to 20 years in prison,..) would be extremely difficult to prove considering their actions. The second charge of "damaging federal property, punishable by another 10 years." - more easily proved. Wouldn't these sentences be concurrent and not consecutive? The last time they were caught, they were given a good talking to and released - I dare say that that is what they hope will happen to them again this time - pure publicity stunt. Silly thing to do at this particular time, as the authorities may take it a bit more seriously - including the security aspect of how it is possible for three civilians to force unauthorised entry to a missile site and remain there undetected for several hours - somebody's going to be in for a roasting on that score, and so they should - unless of course the silo was empty (SALT). Unless of course the security staff were watching it on CCTV - it would have been as funny as watching Basil Fawlty in that episode of "Fawlty Towers" where he beats his car with a branch. Or, maybe, more Monty Pythonesque particularly if they were wearing their habits.

"If you are dedicated to the "negotiation through overwhelming force" school of human relations, perhaps you would prefer to come out and say so." As you ask, I believe in:

- Nuclear deterrance, it kept the world at peace during what could otherwise have been a very troubled period.

- Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, those who held them had proved that they would not be used. Aspirant countries and their regimes did/do not have the same track record.

- Nuclear arms reduction leading ultimately to the elimination of all nuclear weapons from the planet.



Mooman,

Political rhetoric is one thing, civil/criminal law is another thing entirely.

My comment regarding abiding by the law was more focussed on the actions of individuals within the legal system of the countries in which they were resident. Not sovereign governments with respect to international conventions where the oprtion does exist to sign up for one but not another.

"On offensive vs. defensive weapons (leaving aside nuclear weapons for the moment) what about a long-range bomber vs. a fighter/interceptor?"

Like the Tornado for example - same aircraft is configured for a wide variety of roles.

America has no great objection to the presence of inspectors - during the period of strategic arms reduction teams of Americans and Russians verified that each others weapons had been destroyed.