To: kattracks
To reiterate:
Rumsfeld: It's not to develop. It's not to deploy. It's not to use. It's to study.
Rumsfeld: We don't know. That's why we want to study it. And we're kind of inclined to think that the idea that we should not be allowed to study such a weapon is not a good idea. We think it -- for one thing, I -- and then I'll ask Dick to comment on the possible use against, for example, chemical or biological storage areas, where a conventional weapon could have a disastrous effect and a low-yield nuclear weapon conceivably could have an effect that would be -- that would mitigate some of the problems with a conventional weapon. But the -- it's important to appreciate that to the extent the United States is prohibited from studying the use of such weapons -- for example, for a deep earth penetrator -- the effect in the world is that it tells the world that they're wise to invest in going underground. And that's not a good thing, from our standpoint.
Rumsfeld: I don't want to prolong this, but it is terribly important that people not hype this and create misimpressions in the public about it by misusing words or being imprecise in the use of words, and saying things like "pursue," which you did. We should be very precise as a to what it is. It is a study. It is nothing more and nothing less. And it is not pursuing, and it is not developing, it is not building, it is not manufacturing, it is not deploying, and it is not using.
4 posted on
05/22/2003 3:25:28 AM PDT by
visualops
(My tagline better get some Viagra, or I'm gonna have to dump it.)
To: visualops
Wasn't it CNN's Jamie MacIntyre (sp) who got his ears boxed for this? Appalling to think that people who make their living with words, either written and/or spoken, have to have the meaning of the word study explained to them, and not just once but again and again. Sheesh!
13 posted on
05/22/2003 4:57:17 AM PDT by
mewzilla
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson