Posted in the Globe and Mail on July 2, 2002 and at:
The firm contends that Canada, with its long record of rejecting nuclear
weapons, would be an ideal permanent depository for surplus Cold War
plutonium, and its location would prevent it from being used again for bombs.
"Having the materials disposed of in a third, neutral, non-weapons state
is truly irreversible, since it will preclude access to this weapons
plutonium by future governments in either Russia or the U.S," it says.
Isn't that why the US is so cooperative in sending us HEU for the Maple reactors at CRL ?
From the Ottawa Citizen, June 9, 2002, by Ian MacLeod:
Mr. [Norm] Rubin says Canadians "should be concerned and outraged."
"Canada, a nation of peace-loving people, is behaving in an outrageous manner, thwarting the attempts of our neighbours to the south to limit the spread of nuclear-weapons usable material.
....as if the HEU didn't exist at all, unless we imported it into Canada ? ...give me a break -- the HEU we import COMES FROM A LARGE US STOCKPILE ! ....he's basically saying that the US can be trusted to guard HEU but Canada can't. Isn't that an insult ?
says Alan Kuperman, a senior policy analyst with the Nuclear Control Institute in Washington, D.C....."The question is . . . how exactly is this material guarded and is it guarded as nuclear weapons material?"
....does this guy know that besides being guarded at CRL, there is a major military base right next door ? ....or are these just rhetorical questions which count on the ignorance of the public to create the maximum fear effect ?