Comments:Protesters serenade Lockheed Martin outside firm's UK HQ

Slanted article
This article presents the view that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is being frankly violated, when the actual situation is much less clear. The treaty covers creation of nuclear weapons, not more efficient systems by which existing weapons might be delivered. 209.30.92.75 (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And is that, in itself, not creation of new nuclear weapons? You're dealing with radioactive material, a bomb from the 1950s would, today, be useless. The fissile material has to regularly be extracted and reprocessed into new weapons. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Useless?! To you, maybe, but do you have any idea what N. Korea would pay for one from any decade that actually worked? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, North Korea would pay for one, working or not. They would be far, far closer to material they could use without mucking about building thousands of hi-tech centrifuges. That wasn't the point I was making; it was that you are perpetually creating new weapons because they have a limited shelf life. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)