<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_20_1652254</id>
	<title>Aging Nuclear Stockpile Good For Decades To Come</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1258744320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>pickens writes <i>"The NY Times reports that the Jason panel, an independent group of scientists advising the federal government on issues of science and technology, has concluded that the program to refurbish aging nuclear arms is sufficient to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/us/20nuke.html">guarantee their destructiveness for decades to come</a>, obviating a need for a costly new generation of more reliable warheads, as proposed by former President Bush. Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona and other Republicans have argued that <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704500604574483224117732120.html">concerns are growing over the reliability of the US's aging nuclear stockpile</a>, and that the possible need for new designs means the nation should retain the right to conduct underground tests of new nuclear weapons. The existing warheads were originally designed for relatively short lifetimes and frequent replacement with better models, but such modernization ended after the US quit testing nuclear arms in 1992. All weapons that remain in the arsenal must now undergo a refurbishment process, known as life extension. The Jason panel found no evidence that the accumulated changes from aging and refurbishment posed any threat to weapon destructiveness, and that the 'lifetimes of today's nuclear warheads could be extended for decades, with no anticipated loss of confidence.' But the panel added that federal indifference could <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/29/nation/na-broken-warheads29">undermine the nuclear refurbishment program</a> (as this report from last May illustrates). Quoting <a href="http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/file\_download/213/JASON\_LEP.pdf">the report</a> (PDF): 'The study team is concerned that this expertise is threatened by lack of program stability, perceived lack of mission importance and degradation of the work environment.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>pickens writes " The NY Times reports that the Jason panel , an independent group of scientists advising the federal government on issues of science and technology , has concluded that the program to refurbish aging nuclear arms is sufficient to guarantee their destructiveness for decades to come , obviating a need for a costly new generation of more reliable warheads , as proposed by former President Bush .
Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona and other Republicans have argued that concerns are growing over the reliability of the US 's aging nuclear stockpile , and that the possible need for new designs means the nation should retain the right to conduct underground tests of new nuclear weapons .
The existing warheads were originally designed for relatively short lifetimes and frequent replacement with better models , but such modernization ended after the US quit testing nuclear arms in 1992 .
All weapons that remain in the arsenal must now undergo a refurbishment process , known as life extension .
The Jason panel found no evidence that the accumulated changes from aging and refurbishment posed any threat to weapon destructiveness , and that the 'lifetimes of today 's nuclear warheads could be extended for decades , with no anticipated loss of confidence .
' But the panel added that federal indifference could undermine the nuclear refurbishment program ( as this report from last May illustrates ) .
Quoting the report ( PDF ) : 'The study team is concerned that this expertise is threatened by lack of program stability , perceived lack of mission importance and degradation of the work environment .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pickens writes "The NY Times reports that the Jason panel, an independent group of scientists advising the federal government on issues of science and technology, has concluded that the program to refurbish aging nuclear arms is sufficient to guarantee their destructiveness for decades to come, obviating a need for a costly new generation of more reliable warheads, as proposed by former President Bush.
Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona and other Republicans have argued that concerns are growing over the reliability of the US's aging nuclear stockpile, and that the possible need for new designs means the nation should retain the right to conduct underground tests of new nuclear weapons.
The existing warheads were originally designed for relatively short lifetimes and frequent replacement with better models, but such modernization ended after the US quit testing nuclear arms in 1992.
All weapons that remain in the arsenal must now undergo a refurbishment process, known as life extension.
The Jason panel found no evidence that the accumulated changes from aging and refurbishment posed any threat to weapon destructiveness, and that the 'lifetimes of today's nuclear warheads could be extended for decades, with no anticipated loss of confidence.
' But the panel added that federal indifference could undermine the nuclear refurbishment program (as this report from last May illustrates).
Quoting the report (PDF): 'The study team is concerned that this expertise is threatened by lack of program stability, perceived lack of mission importance and degradation of the work environment.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30178042</id>
	<title>A brief history of nuclear war...</title>
	<author>Zordak</author>
	<datestamp>1258714260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>we only have enough nuclear weapons to annihiliate the earth 20 times over.</p></div><p>I really only know about the land-based ICBMs, so with the caveat that this doesn't include our SLBMs (Trident) and strategic bombers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Back in the height of the Cold War, we were doing stuff like fielding a fleet of 60+ monster Titan IIs, each with a monster 9MT warhead sitting on the tip, plus a fleet of 800 Minuteman-Is, each with a 1.2MT warhead.  Those two fleets combined gave us a total yield of about 1.5 GT.  We figure, "Drop a couple somewhere in the general vicinity of Moscow, and they've pretty well done their job."  But as we refined our delivery technologies, we started to focus more on (relative) precision.  Circa 1970, we built the Minuteman III, which could carry three much smaller Mk12A Reentry Vehicles (with the W-78 warhead at about 300-kT), buch was much more acccurate.  So we could go for targeted kills on hardened silos without having to level entire cities.  We fielded around 500 MMIIIs, giving us about 1,500 W-78 warheads, meaning at 300-kT each they pack a combined yield of around 450 MT.  That's certainly a lot, but consider that the Russians actually detonated the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar\_bomba" title="wikipedia.org">Tsar Bomba</a> [wikipedia.org]" with a yield of about 50 MT by itself, and it certainly didn't come close to destroying 1/9th of the earth.  By the 80s, we also had a fleet of 50 Peacekeepers, each with 10 Mk21 RVs carrying the 300-kT W-87 warhead.  The Mk21 was the most accurate RV we'd ever built (basically, you could pretty reliably hit a football field).  So that's another 500 warheads, for another 150 MT.  But note that even with 10 warheads, the PK still only had about a third of the total yield (about 3 MT) of a Titan II with a single warhead (about 9 MT).  The PKs and MMIIIs together took us to about 600 MT total yield, and by this time, we were shutting down the Titans  IIs.  So that's less than half the yield we had at the peak.  It's definitely a lot of fire power, but still not enough to scorch the earth 20 times over (or even once over, really).  Then with the START I and II treaties, we started ramping way down.  We agreed to decommission the MIRVs (Multiple Independently-Targetable Reentry Vehicles) (shame really---it was pretty neat technology), so we started decommissioning the Peacekeepers and dropping the MMIIIs to just a single warhead.  Now, we just happened to have about 500 Mk21 RVs from the 50 PKs, and we just happened to have about 500 MMIII delivery vehicles, so we decided to put the best RV on our remaining launcher, and started the SERV program ca. 2005 to retrofit the Mk21 onto the MMIII launch vehicle.</p><p>Now that PK decom is complete, the only silo-launched ICBMs in our fleet are about 450 remaining MMIIIs, each with a single Mk21 RV carrying a single W-87 warhead with about a 300 kT yield.  That means our current ICBM fleet has a combined yield of about 135 MT.  This is not even 3x the yield of Tsar Bomba, and not even 10 times the yield of the U.S.'s biggest single detonation, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle\_bravo" title="wikipedia.org">Castle Bravo</a> [wikipedia.org] shot with a yield of about 15 MT.  It was big, yes, but again, not even close to destroying 1/10th of the earth. </p><p>So long story short, we <em>used</em> to have crazy big nuclear arsenals back in the really tense days of the Cold War.  Today, we still have a scary big nuclear arsenal, but it has only about 1/10th the destructive power of our previous arsenal.  That arsenal is still capable of making life on earth pretty miserable, but it's not going to level the globe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we only have enough nuclear weapons to annihiliate the earth 20 times over.I really only know about the land-based ICBMs , so with the caveat that this does n't include our SLBMs ( Trident ) and strategic bombers ...Back in the height of the Cold War , we were doing stuff like fielding a fleet of 60 + monster Titan IIs , each with a monster 9MT warhead sitting on the tip , plus a fleet of 800 Minuteman-Is , each with a 1.2MT warhead .
Those two fleets combined gave us a total yield of about 1.5 GT .
We figure , " Drop a couple somewhere in the general vicinity of Moscow , and they 've pretty well done their job .
" But as we refined our delivery technologies , we started to focus more on ( relative ) precision .
Circa 1970 , we built the Minuteman III , which could carry three much smaller Mk12A Reentry Vehicles ( with the W-78 warhead at about 300-kT ) , buch was much more acccurate .
So we could go for targeted kills on hardened silos without having to level entire cities .
We fielded around 500 MMIIIs , giving us about 1,500 W-78 warheads , meaning at 300-kT each they pack a combined yield of around 450 MT .
That 's certainly a lot , but consider that the Russians actually detonated the " Tsar Bomba [ wikipedia.org ] " with a yield of about 50 MT by itself , and it certainly did n't come close to destroying 1/9th of the earth .
By the 80s , we also had a fleet of 50 Peacekeepers , each with 10 Mk21 RVs carrying the 300-kT W-87 warhead .
The Mk21 was the most accurate RV we 'd ever built ( basically , you could pretty reliably hit a football field ) .
So that 's another 500 warheads , for another 150 MT .
But note that even with 10 warheads , the PK still only had about a third of the total yield ( about 3 MT ) of a Titan II with a single warhead ( about 9 MT ) .
The PKs and MMIIIs together took us to about 600 MT total yield , and by this time , we were shutting down the Titans IIs .
So that 's less than half the yield we had at the peak .
It 's definitely a lot of fire power , but still not enough to scorch the earth 20 times over ( or even once over , really ) .
Then with the START I and II treaties , we started ramping way down .
We agreed to decommission the MIRVs ( Multiple Independently-Targetable Reentry Vehicles ) ( shame really---it was pretty neat technology ) , so we started decommissioning the Peacekeepers and dropping the MMIIIs to just a single warhead .
Now , we just happened to have about 500 Mk21 RVs from the 50 PKs , and we just happened to have about 500 MMIII delivery vehicles , so we decided to put the best RV on our remaining launcher , and started the SERV program ca .
2005 to retrofit the Mk21 onto the MMIII launch vehicle.Now that PK decom is complete , the only silo-launched ICBMs in our fleet are about 450 remaining MMIIIs , each with a single Mk21 RV carrying a single W-87 warhead with about a 300 kT yield .
That means our current ICBM fleet has a combined yield of about 135 MT .
This is not even 3x the yield of Tsar Bomba , and not even 10 times the yield of the U.S. 's biggest single detonation , the Castle Bravo [ wikipedia.org ] shot with a yield of about 15 MT .
It was big , yes , but again , not even close to destroying 1/10th of the earth .
So long story short , we used to have crazy big nuclear arsenals back in the really tense days of the Cold War .
Today , we still have a scary big nuclear arsenal , but it has only about 1/10th the destructive power of our previous arsenal .
That arsenal is still capable of making life on earth pretty miserable , but it 's not going to level the globe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we only have enough nuclear weapons to annihiliate the earth 20 times over.I really only know about the land-based ICBMs, so with the caveat that this doesn't include our SLBMs (Trident) and strategic bombers ...Back in the height of the Cold War, we were doing stuff like fielding a fleet of 60+ monster Titan IIs, each with a monster 9MT warhead sitting on the tip, plus a fleet of 800 Minuteman-Is, each with a 1.2MT warhead.
Those two fleets combined gave us a total yield of about 1.5 GT.
We figure, "Drop a couple somewhere in the general vicinity of Moscow, and they've pretty well done their job.
"  But as we refined our delivery technologies, we started to focus more on (relative) precision.
Circa 1970, we built the Minuteman III, which could carry three much smaller Mk12A Reentry Vehicles (with the W-78 warhead at about 300-kT), buch was much more acccurate.
So we could go for targeted kills on hardened silos without having to level entire cities.
We fielded around 500 MMIIIs, giving us about 1,500 W-78 warheads, meaning at 300-kT each they pack a combined yield of around 450 MT.
That's certainly a lot, but consider that the Russians actually detonated the "Tsar Bomba [wikipedia.org]" with a yield of about 50 MT by itself, and it certainly didn't come close to destroying 1/9th of the earth.
By the 80s, we also had a fleet of 50 Peacekeepers, each with 10 Mk21 RVs carrying the 300-kT W-87 warhead.
The Mk21 was the most accurate RV we'd ever built (basically, you could pretty reliably hit a football field).
So that's another 500 warheads, for another 150 MT.
But note that even with 10 warheads, the PK still only had about a third of the total yield (about 3 MT) of a Titan II with a single warhead (about 9 MT).
The PKs and MMIIIs together took us to about 600 MT total yield, and by this time, we were shutting down the Titans  IIs.
So that's less than half the yield we had at the peak.
It's definitely a lot of fire power, but still not enough to scorch the earth 20 times over (or even once over, really).
Then with the START I and II treaties, we started ramping way down.
We agreed to decommission the MIRVs (Multiple Independently-Targetable Reentry Vehicles) (shame really---it was pretty neat technology), so we started decommissioning the Peacekeepers and dropping the MMIIIs to just a single warhead.
Now, we just happened to have about 500 Mk21 RVs from the 50 PKs, and we just happened to have about 500 MMIII delivery vehicles, so we decided to put the best RV on our remaining launcher, and started the SERV program ca.
2005 to retrofit the Mk21 onto the MMIII launch vehicle.Now that PK decom is complete, the only silo-launched ICBMs in our fleet are about 450 remaining MMIIIs, each with a single Mk21 RV carrying a single W-87 warhead with about a 300 kT yield.
That means our current ICBM fleet has a combined yield of about 135 MT.
This is not even 3x the yield of Tsar Bomba, and not even 10 times the yield of the U.S.'s biggest single detonation, the Castle Bravo [wikipedia.org] shot with a yield of about 15 MT.
It was big, yes, but again, not even close to destroying 1/10th of the earth.
So long story short, we used to have crazy big nuclear arsenals back in the really tense days of the Cold War.
Today, we still have a scary big nuclear arsenal, but it has only about 1/10th the destructive power of our previous arsenal.
That arsenal is still capable of making life on earth pretty miserable, but it's not going to level the globe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176112</id>
	<title>Re:NPT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258707780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you look up the NPT on Wikipedia, you will see that the other parts of the treaty are about increasing the use of nuclear energy, and sharing the needed knowledge and nuclear materials between all countries that signed the treaty. It looks like Iran is trying to do exactly what this treaty was about, despite the lack of sharing from other countries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look up the NPT on Wikipedia , you will see that the other parts of the treaty are about increasing the use of nuclear energy , and sharing the needed knowledge and nuclear materials between all countries that signed the treaty .
It looks like Iran is trying to do exactly what this treaty was about , despite the lack of sharing from other countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look up the NPT on Wikipedia, you will see that the other parts of the treaty are about increasing the use of nuclear energy, and sharing the needed knowledge and nuclear materials between all countries that signed the treaty.
It looks like Iran is trying to do exactly what this treaty was about, despite the lack of sharing from other countries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175480</id>
	<title>Feeder Reactors</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1258748640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So does that mean we can use the saved money to fund feeder reactors that don't have the potential to produce weapons grade material?
<br> <br>
Probably a pipe dream for a while still, but at least that's one less lobby pushing against building new-styled reactors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So does that mean we can use the saved money to fund feeder reactors that do n't have the potential to produce weapons grade material ?
Probably a pipe dream for a while still , but at least that 's one less lobby pushing against building new-styled reactors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does that mean we can use the saved money to fund feeder reactors that don't have the potential to produce weapons grade material?
Probably a pipe dream for a while still, but at least that's one less lobby pushing against building new-styled reactors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175510</id>
	<title>Refurbishing Nukes...</title>
	<author>Landshark17</author>
	<datestamp>1258748700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not only possible... it is essential!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not only possible... it is essential !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not only possible... it is essential!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177990</id>
	<title>Re:"Fixing the bombs fixes them!"</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1258714140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Good work telling everyone that fixing things fixes them.</i></p><p>I see you've never had a disagreement with a mechanic or plumber over the definition of "fixed".</p><p>Personally I'm very glad they went to the trouble to figure out that "fixing" them according to the procedure is the same as "fixing" them according to our long-term strategic nuclear stockpile goals.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good work telling everyone that fixing things fixes them.I see you 've never had a disagreement with a mechanic or plumber over the definition of " fixed " .Personally I 'm very glad they went to the trouble to figure out that " fixing " them according to the procedure is the same as " fixing " them according to our long-term strategic nuclear stockpile goals .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good work telling everyone that fixing things fixes them.I see you've never had a disagreement with a mechanic or plumber over the definition of "fixed".Personally I'm very glad they went to the trouble to figure out that "fixing" them according to the procedure is the same as "fixing" them according to our long-term strategic nuclear stockpile goals.
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177272</id>
	<title>Re:What if nobody knew?</title>
	<author>Ukab the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1258711680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then we'd be safe from wiping each other out but we'd be f*##ed when the 6-mile wide asteroid decided to pay us a visit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then we 'd be safe from wiping each other out but we 'd be f * # # ed when the 6-mile wide asteroid decided to pay us a visit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then we'd be safe from wiping each other out but we'd be f*##ed when the 6-mile wide asteroid decided to pay us a visit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176572</id>
	<title>JASON</title>
	<author>Ifni</author>
	<datestamp>1258709400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>July, August, September, October, November - so does this indicate that the study is leading up to a nuclear winter?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>July , August , September , October , November - so does this indicate that the study is leading up to a nuclear winter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>July, August, September, October, November - so does this indicate that the study is leading up to a nuclear winter?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175938</id>
	<title>What if nobody knew?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258750140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a thought...what if the people that knew the missiles needed to be replaced eventually kept that quiet? What if the entire world believed our nuclear weapons were still good, but we just silently let them degrade and didn't spend any more money or time on nukes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a thought...what if the people that knew the missiles needed to be replaced eventually kept that quiet ?
What if the entire world believed our nuclear weapons were still good , but we just silently let them degrade and did n't spend any more money or time on nukes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a thought...what if the people that knew the missiles needed to be replaced eventually kept that quiet?
What if the entire world believed our nuclear weapons were still good, but we just silently let them degrade and didn't spend any more money or time on nukes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175714</id>
	<title>NPT</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1258749300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the stated requirements of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty is that nations that sign it that don't already have nukes don't develop them, and nations that do work towards phasing their own out of existence.  If we want to restart nuclear weapons testing to work on replacement nukes, then we need to stop pressuring Iran and other nations to not develop their own, because it would be very hypocritical for us to demand other nations stick to the terms of the NPT when we ourselves are blatantly violating it.  Alternately, if we are serious about the NPT, then we have no need to be working on the next generation bombs -- we should be instead working on making sure the current generation is the last generation.</p><p>There are arguments to be made either way, but make up your minds, people.  Don't talk out both sides of your mouths on this one.  Let's either start working on new bombs and bless Iran on its quest to make its own, or let's take the NPT seriously and both press Iran on compliance, and comply with it ourselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the stated requirements of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty is that nations that sign it that do n't already have nukes do n't develop them , and nations that do work towards phasing their own out of existence .
If we want to restart nuclear weapons testing to work on replacement nukes , then we need to stop pressuring Iran and other nations to not develop their own , because it would be very hypocritical for us to demand other nations stick to the terms of the NPT when we ourselves are blatantly violating it .
Alternately , if we are serious about the NPT , then we have no need to be working on the next generation bombs -- we should be instead working on making sure the current generation is the last generation.There are arguments to be made either way , but make up your minds , people .
Do n't talk out both sides of your mouths on this one .
Let 's either start working on new bombs and bless Iran on its quest to make its own , or let 's take the NPT seriously and both press Iran on compliance , and comply with it ourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the stated requirements of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty is that nations that sign it that don't already have nukes don't develop them, and nations that do work towards phasing their own out of existence.
If we want to restart nuclear weapons testing to work on replacement nukes, then we need to stop pressuring Iran and other nations to not develop their own, because it would be very hypocritical for us to demand other nations stick to the terms of the NPT when we ourselves are blatantly violating it.
Alternately, if we are serious about the NPT, then we have no need to be working on the next generation bombs -- we should be instead working on making sure the current generation is the last generation.There are arguments to be made either way, but make up your minds, people.
Don't talk out both sides of your mouths on this one.
Let's either start working on new bombs and bless Iran on its quest to make its own, or let's take the NPT seriously and both press Iran on compliance, and comply with it ourselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30178984</id>
	<title>Re:God forbid</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1258717800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you watched Dr. Strangelove? You really need to go do so</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you watched Dr. Strangelove ? You really need to go do so</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you watched Dr. Strangelove? You really need to go do so</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176666</id>
	<title>why don't we....</title>
	<author>inerlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1258709760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>just outsource the warheads to india or china....<br>that's where all the technical expertise, and all the jobs are.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>just outsource the warheads to india or china....that 's where all the technical expertise , and all the jobs are.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just outsource the warheads to india or china....that's where all the technical expertise, and all the jobs are.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30180540</id>
	<title>Re:God forbid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258725780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Armageddon is and always has been somewhat of an overstatement. The classic US/Soviet scenario would have left those two entities as severely depopulated radioactive hellholes with nothing to call a city anymore, but large parts of the world would have gone on relatively unscathed, except of course for considerably higher rates of cancer and birth deformities in addition to the mother of all economic depressions, worse as you live closer to US or the Soviet union.</p><p>Advanced civilization would have been set back, but not obliterated. There just isn't enough radioactive material in nukes for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Armageddon is and always has been somewhat of an overstatement .
The classic US/Soviet scenario would have left those two entities as severely depopulated radioactive hellholes with nothing to call a city anymore , but large parts of the world would have gone on relatively unscathed , except of course for considerably higher rates of cancer and birth deformities in addition to the mother of all economic depressions , worse as you live closer to US or the Soviet union.Advanced civilization would have been set back , but not obliterated .
There just is n't enough radioactive material in nukes for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Armageddon is and always has been somewhat of an overstatement.
The classic US/Soviet scenario would have left those two entities as severely depopulated radioactive hellholes with nothing to call a city anymore, but large parts of the world would have gone on relatively unscathed, except of course for considerably higher rates of cancer and birth deformities in addition to the mother of all economic depressions, worse as you live closer to US or the Soviet union.Advanced civilization would have been set back, but not obliterated.
There just isn't enough radioactive material in nukes for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176034</id>
	<title>Re:honestty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258750680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>same anonymous poster as the start (too lazy to make an account)</p><p>All those reasons sound like intense paranoia to me...The logic of 'If I don't have ways to kill other people everyone else will try to kill me' is self fulfilling and moronic at best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>same anonymous poster as the start ( too lazy to make an account ) All those reasons sound like intense paranoia to me...The logic of 'If I do n't have ways to kill other people everyone else will try to kill me ' is self fulfilling and moronic at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>same anonymous poster as the start (too lazy to make an account)All those reasons sound like intense paranoia to me...The logic of 'If I don't have ways to kill other people everyone else will try to kill me' is self fulfilling and moronic at best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175746</id>
	<title>Testing existing weapons is important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258749420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I say we test a bomb from our stockpile on Congress. It'll confirm that the weapons are ready for use and save us hundreds of billions a year in out of control spending.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I say we test a bomb from our stockpile on Congress .
It 'll confirm that the weapons are ready for use and save us hundreds of billions a year in out of control spending .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say we test a bomb from our stockpile on Congress.
It'll confirm that the weapons are ready for use and save us hundreds of billions a year in out of control spending.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175636</id>
	<title>Man...</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1258749060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you imagine what the world was like 100 years ago? Where wars were fought on foot and were mostly civil wars, or simple trade disputes? Where mutually assured destruction and worrying how long your nukes will last were never present.</p><p>Or go back even further, like 500 years, where the world was a bold new place worth exploring, and if a war were to be fought, it'd be because you want to rescue the pope, or payback for a political insult, or because you were bored...</p><p>Sometimes I feel like I was born in the wrong century. The internet is way over-rated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you imagine what the world was like 100 years ago ?
Where wars were fought on foot and were mostly civil wars , or simple trade disputes ?
Where mutually assured destruction and worrying how long your nukes will last were never present.Or go back even further , like 500 years , where the world was a bold new place worth exploring , and if a war were to be fought , it 'd be because you want to rescue the pope , or payback for a political insult , or because you were bored...Sometimes I feel like I was born in the wrong century .
The internet is way over-rated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you imagine what the world was like 100 years ago?
Where wars were fought on foot and were mostly civil wars, or simple trade disputes?
Where mutually assured destruction and worrying how long your nukes will last were never present.Or go back even further, like 500 years, where the world was a bold new place worth exploring, and if a war were to be fought, it'd be because you want to rescue the pope, or payback for a political insult, or because you were bored...Sometimes I feel like I was born in the wrong century.
The internet is way over-rated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175722</id>
	<title>Re:Not atypical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258749360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, as unpolitically correct as it may be, an active nuclear weapons program might be necessary. Complete disarmament is all well and good, and a slow loss of weapons and skills to age could be one way to accomplish that. But complete disarmament isn't worthwhile without permanent disarmament also, and I don't see how that's possible. The knowledge and technology exists, and as the general level of technology in this world increases it will only become easier to build nuclear weapons. Without permanent disarmament (which would be impossible without some form of world government), you have to accept one of these possibilities:<br>1. A hostile power is nuclear armed and you are not.<br>2. You are now racing a hostile power to rearm yourself... except they have a headstart, since you only found out they've been building weapons after their program has progressed considerably. And that in turn gives them an incentive to use their weapons before you finish yours...<br>3. Abandon disarmament and proactively maintain a deterrence force.</p><p>Look, the technology to build nuclear weapons is never going to go away. Until we find a technology to neuter these devices without playing deterrence/MAD games, then a continued nuclear weapons program is essential. Otherwise we are locked in a cycle of decay, and panicked rebuilding. I'd rather things be as boring as possible, even if that means the occasional underground bang.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , as unpolitically correct as it may be , an active nuclear weapons program might be necessary .
Complete disarmament is all well and good , and a slow loss of weapons and skills to age could be one way to accomplish that .
But complete disarmament is n't worthwhile without permanent disarmament also , and I do n't see how that 's possible .
The knowledge and technology exists , and as the general level of technology in this world increases it will only become easier to build nuclear weapons .
Without permanent disarmament ( which would be impossible without some form of world government ) , you have to accept one of these possibilities : 1 .
A hostile power is nuclear armed and you are not.2 .
You are now racing a hostile power to rearm yourself... except they have a headstart , since you only found out they 've been building weapons after their program has progressed considerably .
And that in turn gives them an incentive to use their weapons before you finish yours...3 .
Abandon disarmament and proactively maintain a deterrence force.Look , the technology to build nuclear weapons is never going to go away .
Until we find a technology to neuter these devices without playing deterrence/MAD games , then a continued nuclear weapons program is essential .
Otherwise we are locked in a cycle of decay , and panicked rebuilding .
I 'd rather things be as boring as possible , even if that means the occasional underground bang .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, as unpolitically correct as it may be, an active nuclear weapons program might be necessary.
Complete disarmament is all well and good, and a slow loss of weapons and skills to age could be one way to accomplish that.
But complete disarmament isn't worthwhile without permanent disarmament also, and I don't see how that's possible.
The knowledge and technology exists, and as the general level of technology in this world increases it will only become easier to build nuclear weapons.
Without permanent disarmament (which would be impossible without some form of world government), you have to accept one of these possibilities:1.
A hostile power is nuclear armed and you are not.2.
You are now racing a hostile power to rearm yourself... except they have a headstart, since you only found out they've been building weapons after their program has progressed considerably.
And that in turn gives them an incentive to use their weapons before you finish yours...3.
Abandon disarmament and proactively maintain a deterrence force.Look, the technology to build nuclear weapons is never going to go away.
Until we find a technology to neuter these devices without playing deterrence/MAD games, then a continued nuclear weapons program is essential.
Otherwise we are locked in a cycle of decay, and panicked rebuilding.
I'd rather things be as boring as possible, even if that means the occasional underground bang.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176790</id>
	<title>Re:Testing existing weapons is important</title>
	<author>inerlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1258710180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>i vote we test 'em on iran, iraq, afghanistan and pakistan if they don't get their shit together....<br>when france and germany bitch about it to the UN, we'll send a few to paris and berlin....</htmltext>
<tokenext>i vote we test 'em on iran , iraq , afghanistan and pakistan if they do n't get their shit together....when france and germany bitch about it to the UN , we 'll send a few to paris and berlin... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i vote we test 'em on iran, iraq, afghanistan and pakistan if they don't get their shit together....when france and germany bitch about it to the UN, we'll send a few to paris and berlin....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177070</id>
	<title>Re:Not atypical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258711020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Humans are particularly bad at passing this kind of knowledge over extended time gaps.</p></div><p>Good! If we have to relearn how to create nuclear weapons every single time, we won't be able to create them in such a hurry. Also, if we're really desperate, can't we use the old designs? You only start from scratch if you want to improve it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Humans are particularly bad at passing this kind of knowledge over extended time gaps.Good !
If we have to relearn how to create nuclear weapons every single time , we wo n't be able to create them in such a hurry .
Also , if we 're really desperate , ca n't we use the old designs ?
You only start from scratch if you want to improve it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humans are particularly bad at passing this kind of knowledge over extended time gaps.Good!
If we have to relearn how to create nuclear weapons every single time, we won't be able to create them in such a hurry.
Also, if we're really desperate, can't we use the old designs?
You only start from scratch if you want to improve it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175416</id>
	<title>honestty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258748460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>can we please stop wasting ALL of our money on the military? what the hell are we gonna do with a nuke anyhow...they are well established as unusable in warfare...all you can do it it is say 'I lost so screw everyone, I'm gonna make a nuclear winter'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>can we please stop wasting ALL of our money on the military ?
what the hell are we gon na do with a nuke anyhow...they are well established as unusable in warfare...all you can do it it is say 'I lost so screw everyone , I 'm gon na make a nuclear winter'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can we please stop wasting ALL of our money on the military?
what the hell are we gonna do with a nuke anyhow...they are well established as unusable in warfare...all you can do it it is say 'I lost so screw everyone, I'm gonna make a nuclear winter'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175334</id>
	<title>Good...</title>
	<author>BiggoronSword</author>
	<datestamp>1258748160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe this will solve our <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/11/17/157231/CERN-Physicist-Warns-About-Uranium-Shortage" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Uranium Shortage</a> [slashdot.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this will solve our Uranium Shortage [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this will solve our Uranium Shortage [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177250</id>
	<title>Re:honestty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258711620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is quite logical to me. Most people are rational and sane. They just want to go about their lives and their business. However, some people are batshit crazy, especially when they get a little bit of power. Some people just feel they can do whatever they wish because they have way more to gain than they have too lose. Some people are just sadists. These small minorities seem to gravitate to positions where they can do harm. It is most logical to have some way to deter them from starting shit. Police are a form of deterrence in normal society. Personal weapons are another form of deterrence.</p><p>Now look on a larger scale, not between people, but between societies. Instead of personal weapons we now have armies. Now, through various circumstances through the ages, we have unlocked a more powerful weapon than has been known through the ages. The genie is out of the bottle, nukes are here to stay. If every nuke on the earth is destroyed in a gesture of goodwill, there is nothing stopping a lucky and well funded whackjob from building one himself.</p><p><i>If I don't have ways to kill other people everyone else will try to kill me</i></p><p>I will agree that this line of reasoning is paranoid and moronic. However, this is not the reasoning of deterrence. The reasoning of most rational people is closer to "I have a weapon. I do not want to use it. If you attack me, however, I will be forced to use it on you."  I do not know about certain countries that may or may not frighten and indoctrinate their citizens to believe that 'the US is the most evil country on earth and wants to destroy them and eat their babies at all cost', but I am assuming that most of the world knows that the US does not want to start a nuclear war and that few people are actually prepared and willing to give the order to use nuclear force.   But if some madman wants to threaten and posture, we have them.</p><p>Will they ever be used again? Hopefully not. They are only good for destroying very large areas very quickly. They are useless in modern warfare when we can precisely target and destroy objectives of interest with a push of a button with very little collateral damage. Why level a city when you can just blow up the enemy headquarters and take the city intact with no need to rebuild.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is quite logical to me .
Most people are rational and sane .
They just want to go about their lives and their business .
However , some people are batshit crazy , especially when they get a little bit of power .
Some people just feel they can do whatever they wish because they have way more to gain than they have too lose .
Some people are just sadists .
These small minorities seem to gravitate to positions where they can do harm .
It is most logical to have some way to deter them from starting shit .
Police are a form of deterrence in normal society .
Personal weapons are another form of deterrence.Now look on a larger scale , not between people , but between societies .
Instead of personal weapons we now have armies .
Now , through various circumstances through the ages , we have unlocked a more powerful weapon than has been known through the ages .
The genie is out of the bottle , nukes are here to stay .
If every nuke on the earth is destroyed in a gesture of goodwill , there is nothing stopping a lucky and well funded whackjob from building one himself.If I do n't have ways to kill other people everyone else will try to kill meI will agree that this line of reasoning is paranoid and moronic .
However , this is not the reasoning of deterrence .
The reasoning of most rational people is closer to " I have a weapon .
I do not want to use it .
If you attack me , however , I will be forced to use it on you .
" I do not know about certain countries that may or may not frighten and indoctrinate their citizens to believe that 'the US is the most evil country on earth and wants to destroy them and eat their babies at all cost ' , but I am assuming that most of the world knows that the US does not want to start a nuclear war and that few people are actually prepared and willing to give the order to use nuclear force .
But if some madman wants to threaten and posture , we have them.Will they ever be used again ?
Hopefully not .
They are only good for destroying very large areas very quickly .
They are useless in modern warfare when we can precisely target and destroy objectives of interest with a push of a button with very little collateral damage .
Why level a city when you can just blow up the enemy headquarters and take the city intact with no need to rebuild .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is quite logical to me.
Most people are rational and sane.
They just want to go about their lives and their business.
However, some people are batshit crazy, especially when they get a little bit of power.
Some people just feel they can do whatever they wish because they have way more to gain than they have too lose.
Some people are just sadists.
These small minorities seem to gravitate to positions where they can do harm.
It is most logical to have some way to deter them from starting shit.
Police are a form of deterrence in normal society.
Personal weapons are another form of deterrence.Now look on a larger scale, not between people, but between societies.
Instead of personal weapons we now have armies.
Now, through various circumstances through the ages, we have unlocked a more powerful weapon than has been known through the ages.
The genie is out of the bottle, nukes are here to stay.
If every nuke on the earth is destroyed in a gesture of goodwill, there is nothing stopping a lucky and well funded whackjob from building one himself.If I don't have ways to kill other people everyone else will try to kill meI will agree that this line of reasoning is paranoid and moronic.
However, this is not the reasoning of deterrence.
The reasoning of most rational people is closer to "I have a weapon.
I do not want to use it.
If you attack me, however, I will be forced to use it on you.
"  I do not know about certain countries that may or may not frighten and indoctrinate their citizens to believe that 'the US is the most evil country on earth and wants to destroy them and eat their babies at all cost', but I am assuming that most of the world knows that the US does not want to start a nuclear war and that few people are actually prepared and willing to give the order to use nuclear force.
But if some madman wants to threaten and posture, we have them.Will they ever be used again?
Hopefully not.
They are only good for destroying very large areas very quickly.
They are useless in modern warfare when we can precisely target and destroy objectives of interest with a push of a button with very little collateral damage.
Why level a city when you can just blow up the enemy headquarters and take the city intact with no need to rebuild.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30191040</id>
	<title>Re:Easy solution</title>
	<author>akayani</author>
	<datestamp>1258826160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Close 'Pay Pakistanis and Iranians to run a recycling program that comes up with a marketable product.'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Close 'Pay Pakistanis and Iranians to run a recycling program that comes up with a marketable product .
' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Close 'Pay Pakistanis and Iranians to run a recycling program that comes up with a marketable product.
'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30181094</id>
	<title>Re:"Fixing the bombs fixes them!"</title>
	<author>ShooterNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1258729860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do we need to be absolutely 100\% sure that the nukes will go boom?  If we're merely "fairly certain" that the weapons will probably work, isn't that sufficient deterrence?  What enemy is going to attack on the possibility that we MIGHT not be able to retaliate because our nukes were old and the missiles were poorly maintained?  A pretty risky move to bet millions of lives of your countrymen on a maybe.</p><p>Not to mention the 3 legs of the triangle : it's kinda unlikely that plain old aging would prevent all the different types of nukes and delivery vehicles we have from working.</p><p>Your old car example : that's true if you are USING the car.  You can easily take vehicle parts made in the 1940s or earlier that were stored in grease and bolt them right onto a vehicle of that vintage and it will work.  In addition, Jay Leno has vehicles made around 1920 that work fine with basically no maintainence done in the mean time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do we need to be absolutely 100 \ % sure that the nukes will go boom ?
If we 're merely " fairly certain " that the weapons will probably work , is n't that sufficient deterrence ?
What enemy is going to attack on the possibility that we MIGHT not be able to retaliate because our nukes were old and the missiles were poorly maintained ?
A pretty risky move to bet millions of lives of your countrymen on a maybe.Not to mention the 3 legs of the triangle : it 's kinda unlikely that plain old aging would prevent all the different types of nukes and delivery vehicles we have from working.Your old car example : that 's true if you are USING the car .
You can easily take vehicle parts made in the 1940s or earlier that were stored in grease and bolt them right onto a vehicle of that vintage and it will work .
In addition , Jay Leno has vehicles made around 1920 that work fine with basically no maintainence done in the mean time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do we need to be absolutely 100\% sure that the nukes will go boom?
If we're merely "fairly certain" that the weapons will probably work, isn't that sufficient deterrence?
What enemy is going to attack on the possibility that we MIGHT not be able to retaliate because our nukes were old and the missiles were poorly maintained?
A pretty risky move to bet millions of lives of your countrymen on a maybe.Not to mention the 3 legs of the triangle : it's kinda unlikely that plain old aging would prevent all the different types of nukes and delivery vehicles we have from working.Your old car example : that's true if you are USING the car.
You can easily take vehicle parts made in the 1940s or earlier that were stored in grease and bolt them right onto a vehicle of that vintage and it will work.
In addition, Jay Leno has vehicles made around 1920 that work fine with basically no maintainence done in the mean time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176178</id>
	<title>Re:Not atypical</title>
	<author>init100</author>
	<datestamp>1258707960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. A hostile power is nuclear armed and you are not.</p></div><p>Well, we are already in that situation, just like many other countries. So it's not like it's a new situation, except it would be for the US.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
A hostile power is nuclear armed and you are not.Well , we are already in that situation , just like many other countries .
So it 's not like it 's a new situation , except it would be for the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
A hostile power is nuclear armed and you are not.Well, we are already in that situation, just like many other countries.
So it's not like it's a new situation, except it would be for the US.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177708</id>
	<title>Re:Easy solution</title>
	<author>Avalain</author>
	<datestamp>1258713180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was thinking we could give them our nukes so that they can fix them up for us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking we could give them our nukes so that they can fix them up for us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking we could give them our nukes so that they can fix them up for us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176968</id>
	<title>Re:Not atypical</title>
	<author>explosivejared</author>
	<datestamp>1258710660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it's going to become increasingly easy to build nuclear weapons in the future, why worry about maintaining obsolete stockpiles and fading institutional knowledge of said obsolete, more difficult to build stockpiles?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's going to become increasingly easy to build nuclear weapons in the future , why worry about maintaining obsolete stockpiles and fading institutional knowledge of said obsolete , more difficult to build stockpiles ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's going to become increasingly easy to build nuclear weapons in the future, why worry about maintaining obsolete stockpiles and fading institutional knowledge of said obsolete, more difficult to build stockpiles?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177458</id>
	<title>Re:God forbid</title>
	<author>interploy</author>
	<datestamp>1258712220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with that line of reasoning is that when your main deterrent is a threat, that threat must never waver.  If an enemy doubts your ability to carry out a threat, then the threat loses all credibility.  Right now no country is willing to chance it, but if those warheads are just left to sit, then... eventually someone will take the gambit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with that line of reasoning is that when your main deterrent is a threat , that threat must never waver .
If an enemy doubts your ability to carry out a threat , then the threat loses all credibility .
Right now no country is willing to chance it , but if those warheads are just left to sit , then... eventually someone will take the gambit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with that line of reasoning is that when your main deterrent is a threat, that threat must never waver.
If an enemy doubts your ability to carry out a threat, then the threat loses all credibility.
Right now no country is willing to chance it, but if those warheads are just left to sit, then... eventually someone will take the gambit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177106</id>
	<title>Re:Not atypical</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1258711080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consider this factor: lots of people think that blowing up the planet is a really bad idea. No Armageddon, no need for Armageddon weaponry. Such Ludditism may shock you, but there it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider this factor : lots of people think that blowing up the planet is a really bad idea .
No Armageddon , no need for Armageddon weaponry .
Such Ludditism may shock you , but there it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider this factor: lots of people think that blowing up the planet is a really bad idea.
No Armageddon, no need for Armageddon weaponry.
Such Ludditism may shock you, but there it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30181584</id>
	<title>Re:"Fixing the bombs fixes them!"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258734960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tritium. It's the tritium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tritium .
It 's the tritium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tritium.
It's the tritium.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177448</id>
	<title>Phew!</title>
	<author>Balial</author>
	<datestamp>1258712220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Aging Nuclear Stockpile Good For Decades To Come</i></p><p>Well, that's a relief for me! I was getting worried!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aging Nuclear Stockpile Good For Decades To ComeWell , that 's a relief for me !
I was getting worried !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aging Nuclear Stockpile Good For Decades To ComeWell, that's a relief for me!
I was getting worried!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175810</id>
	<title>What about the Foam?</title>
	<author>jddj</author>
	<datestamp>1258749720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My wife and I toured the museum of stuff that blows up (Bradbury museum?) at Los Alamos on our honeymoon (the site does say "news for nerds", right?).</p><p>One of the displays said that special styrofoam-like stuff that holds reactive parts of some in-stockpile nuclear weapons in place has a service life of 10 years, but the weapons using it are 25 or more years old. Meanwhile, they've lost the recipe to make more foam.</p><p>I wonder if they're able to refurbish these nukes (and what happens as the foam ages if not).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife and I toured the museum of stuff that blows up ( Bradbury museum ?
) at Los Alamos on our honeymoon ( the site does say " news for nerds " , right ?
) .One of the displays said that special styrofoam-like stuff that holds reactive parts of some in-stockpile nuclear weapons in place has a service life of 10 years , but the weapons using it are 25 or more years old .
Meanwhile , they 've lost the recipe to make more foam.I wonder if they 're able to refurbish these nukes ( and what happens as the foam ages if not ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife and I toured the museum of stuff that blows up (Bradbury museum?
) at Los Alamos on our honeymoon (the site does say "news for nerds", right?
).One of the displays said that special styrofoam-like stuff that holds reactive parts of some in-stockpile nuclear weapons in place has a service life of 10 years, but the weapons using it are 25 or more years old.
Meanwhile, they've lost the recipe to make more foam.I wonder if they're able to refurbish these nukes (and what happens as the foam ages if not).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30178462</id>
	<title>Re:God forbid</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1258715760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footfall" title="wikipedia.org">baby elephants attack</a> [wikipedia.org] and we need to stop them from dropping a rock on us?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if baby elephants attack [ wikipedia.org ] and we need to stop them from dropping a rock on us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if baby elephants attack [wikipedia.org] and we need to stop them from dropping a rock on us?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175660</id>
	<title>Jon Kyl</title>
	<author>Bassman59</author>
	<datestamp>1258749180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... is a fucking idiot. Anything he says should be ignored or ridiculed.</p><p>Signed, one of his constituents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... is a fucking idiot .
Anything he says should be ignored or ridiculed.Signed , one of his constituents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is a fucking idiot.
Anything he says should be ignored or ridiculed.Signed, one of his constituents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177858</id>
	<title>Re:God forbid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258713720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on what pussy gives a shit about the planet. Detonating a nuke (preferably 'over' ground) would be the show of the decade, start selling tickets now. Even just watching it in HD would be uber.</p><p>Just don't burn out your retinas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on what pussy gives a shit about the planet .
Detonating a nuke ( preferably 'over ' ground ) would be the show of the decade , start selling tickets now .
Even just watching it in HD would be uber.Just do n't burn out your retinas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on what pussy gives a shit about the planet.
Detonating a nuke (preferably 'over' ground) would be the show of the decade, start selling tickets now.
Even just watching it in HD would be uber.Just don't burn out your retinas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30179782</id>
	<title>In related news...</title>
	<author>Jeian</author>
	<datestamp>1258721640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In related news, USAF Gen. Kevin Chilton, head of the US Strategic Command, opined today that the US needs *more* nuclear weapons.</p><p><a href="http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/11/airforce\_chilton\_111909w/" title="airforcetimes.com">http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/11/airforce\_chilton\_111909w/</a> [airforcetimes.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In related news , USAF Gen. Kevin Chilton , head of the US Strategic Command , opined today that the US needs * more * nuclear weapons.http : //www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/11/airforce \ _chilton \ _111909w/ [ airforcetimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In related news, USAF Gen. Kevin Chilton, head of the US Strategic Command, opined today that the US needs *more* nuclear weapons.http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/11/airforce\_chilton\_111909w/ [airforcetimes.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175908</id>
	<title>Re:Not atypical</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1258750020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>we only need to keep a low grade (slow development) program going.  Other than the Russians, no one has more than a couple hundred warheads.  the U.S. has, what, 10,000 or so with around 2400 in active deployment of some form.  We could drop that an order of magnitude with little or no risk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>we only need to keep a low grade ( slow development ) program going .
Other than the Russians , no one has more than a couple hundred warheads .
the U.S. has , what , 10,000 or so with around 2400 in active deployment of some form .
We could drop that an order of magnitude with little or no risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we only need to keep a low grade (slow development) program going.
Other than the Russians, no one has more than a couple hundred warheads.
the U.S. has, what, 10,000 or so with around 2400 in active deployment of some form.
We could drop that an order of magnitude with little or no risk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175306</id>
	<title>Easy solution</title>
	<author>Cornwallis</author>
	<datestamp>1258748100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the U.S. needs to do is pay the Pakistanis and Iranians for the latest nukes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the U.S. needs to do is pay the Pakistanis and Iranians for the latest nukes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the U.S. needs to do is pay the Pakistanis and Iranians for the latest nukes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175552</id>
	<title>"Guarantee their Destructiveness"</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1258748820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does that mean nukes will now have a new label on them?</p><p>"Best if used to initiate Global Armageddon by December 12, 2054"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does that mean nukes will now have a new label on them ?
" Best if used to initiate Global Armageddon by December 12 , 2054 "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does that mean nukes will now have a new label on them?
"Best if used to initiate Global Armageddon by December 12, 2054"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30179498</id>
	<title>Just in case...</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1258720140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some comedian - I think it was Ed Byrne - on the UK satirical news quiz "Have I Got News For You" made a good point about nuclear submarines.  Probably misquoting slightly it was:</p><p>"We need to spend &pound;20bn on a giant metal sausage under the sea in case one day we decide to destroy the world"</p><p>I think that put the whole scheme into perspective a bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some comedian - I think it was Ed Byrne - on the UK satirical news quiz " Have I Got News For You " made a good point about nuclear submarines .
Probably misquoting slightly it was : " We need to spend   20bn on a giant metal sausage under the sea in case one day we decide to destroy the world " I think that put the whole scheme into perspective a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some comedian - I think it was Ed Byrne - on the UK satirical news quiz "Have I Got News For You" made a good point about nuclear submarines.
Probably misquoting slightly it was:"We need to spend £20bn on a giant metal sausage under the sea in case one day we decide to destroy the world"I think that put the whole scheme into perspective a bit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176946</id>
	<title>Who knew?</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1258710600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who woulda guessed that nukes come with the same Use-By date as Hostess pastries?  Now we know that, also just like those Hostess Twinkies, our nukes are good for decades after those dates.  That's awesome news for the Apocalypse survivors, who will have dessert AND won't have to bother making their own M.A.D. devices from scratch.</p><p>"Good news, everyone!  We found nukes from Fry's time and they're as fresh and tasty as the day they were put in the wrappers!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who woulda guessed that nukes come with the same Use-By date as Hostess pastries ?
Now we know that , also just like those Hostess Twinkies , our nukes are good for decades after those dates .
That 's awesome news for the Apocalypse survivors , who will have dessert AND wo n't have to bother making their own M.A.D .
devices from scratch .
" Good news , everyone !
We found nukes from Fry 's time and they 're as fresh and tasty as the day they were put in the wrappers !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who woulda guessed that nukes come with the same Use-By date as Hostess pastries?
Now we know that, also just like those Hostess Twinkies, our nukes are good for decades after those dates.
That's awesome news for the Apocalypse survivors, who will have dessert AND won't have to bother making their own M.A.D.
devices from scratch.
"Good news, everyone!
We found nukes from Fry's time and they're as fresh and tasty as the day they were put in the wrappers!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175682</id>
	<title>The Nuke version of Y2K?</title>
	<author>ka9dgx</author>
	<datestamp>1258749240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Y2K was mostly a result of the radical shift in the nature of software development brought about by the IBM 360 and other computers which included a new feature of backward compatibility. Prior to that time it was safe to assume that programs would only live until they needed to be re-written to run on the next generation of computer. So as a result, we had many programs living well past retirement age. This then lead to a sane design decision from the 1950's getting us into trouble 40 years later.</p><p>Now we have a similar situation with Nukes. The Test Ban Treaty radically changed the nuclear weapons development environment, and as a result our nukes are now well past their retirement age. They were meant to be replaced, but haven't been.</p><p>It is important to note that in both cases, the eventual cost are still WELL below the development and other costs which were avoided.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Y2K was mostly a result of the radical shift in the nature of software development brought about by the IBM 360 and other computers which included a new feature of backward compatibility .
Prior to that time it was safe to assume that programs would only live until they needed to be re-written to run on the next generation of computer .
So as a result , we had many programs living well past retirement age .
This then lead to a sane design decision from the 1950 's getting us into trouble 40 years later.Now we have a similar situation with Nukes .
The Test Ban Treaty radically changed the nuclear weapons development environment , and as a result our nukes are now well past their retirement age .
They were meant to be replaced , but have n't been.It is important to note that in both cases , the eventual cost are still WELL below the development and other costs which were avoided .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Y2K was mostly a result of the radical shift in the nature of software development brought about by the IBM 360 and other computers which included a new feature of backward compatibility.
Prior to that time it was safe to assume that programs would only live until they needed to be re-written to run on the next generation of computer.
So as a result, we had many programs living well past retirement age.
This then lead to a sane design decision from the 1950's getting us into trouble 40 years later.Now we have a similar situation with Nukes.
The Test Ban Treaty radically changed the nuclear weapons development environment, and as a result our nukes are now well past their retirement age.
They were meant to be replaced, but haven't been.It is important to note that in both cases, the eventual cost are still WELL below the development and other costs which were avoided.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176004</id>
	<title>Re:Easy solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258750560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Iranians don't have so much need for ICBMs they have plwnty of volunteer martyrs to carry the warheads strapped to their backs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Iranians do n't have so much need for ICBMs they have plwnty of volunteer martyrs to carry the warheads strapped to their backs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Iranians don't have so much need for ICBMs they have plwnty of volunteer martyrs to carry the warheads strapped to their backs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176250</id>
	<title>Re:What if nobody knew?</title>
	<author>pezpunk</author>
	<datestamp>1258708260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>#1 there's no strategic advantage to nto knowing whether your nukes work or not.  so, this study needs to be done.</p><p>#2 in case you haven't noticed, keeping secrets is not exactly what our government is good at.  in fact we're horrible at it.  if our nukes were paper tigers, word would eventually get out.  and if the rest of the world were to suddenly realize that our nukes didn't work, that would probably be horrendously destabilizing revelation, with potentially cataclysmic consequences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext># 1 there 's no strategic advantage to nto knowing whether your nukes work or not .
so , this study needs to be done. # 2 in case you have n't noticed , keeping secrets is not exactly what our government is good at .
in fact we 're horrible at it .
if our nukes were paper tigers , word would eventually get out .
and if the rest of the world were to suddenly realize that our nukes did n't work , that would probably be horrendously destabilizing revelation , with potentially cataclysmic consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#1 there's no strategic advantage to nto knowing whether your nukes work or not.
so, this study needs to be done.#2 in case you haven't noticed, keeping secrets is not exactly what our government is good at.
in fact we're horrible at it.
if our nukes were paper tigers, word would eventually get out.
and if the rest of the world were to suddenly realize that our nukes didn't work, that would probably be horrendously destabilizing revelation, with potentially cataclysmic consequences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175894</id>
	<title>Re:God forbid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258749960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sometimes 20 just isn't enough!!</p></div><p>20 is enough if you can get them into orbit. It's the only way to be sure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes 20 just is n't enough !
! 20 is enough if you can get them into orbit .
It 's the only way to be sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes 20 just isn't enough!
!20 is enough if you can get them into orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176684</id>
	<title>Re:God forbid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258709880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is 148,940,000 square kilometers of land mass of the earth.<br>A 1 megaton bomb will have a fireball that extends 1100 meter radius.  Assuming this vaporizes the area, it will take 39,200,926 1 Megaton bombs to vaporize the planet.</p><p>A 1 megaton bomb will produce a shock wave that will go 10 kilometers in radius.  It would take 474,331 1 Megaton bombs to rubble the planet.</p><p>The US has about 10,000 as of 2007, and plans to have only 5,000 as of 2012.</p><p>As for radiation effects.... http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3748014,00.html</p><p>References:<br>http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth<br>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/estimates\_of\_us\_nuclear\_weapon.php</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is 148,940,000 square kilometers of land mass of the earth.A 1 megaton bomb will have a fireball that extends 1100 meter radius .
Assuming this vaporizes the area , it will take 39,200,926 1 Megaton bombs to vaporize the planet.A 1 megaton bomb will produce a shock wave that will go 10 kilometers in radius .
It would take 474,331 1 Megaton bombs to rubble the planet.The US has about 10,000 as of 2007 , and plans to have only 5,000 as of 2012.As for radiation effects.... http : //www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3748014,00.htmlReferences : http : //www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htmhttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthhttp : //www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/estimates \ _of \ _us \ _nuclear \ _weapon.php</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is 148,940,000 square kilometers of land mass of the earth.A 1 megaton bomb will have a fireball that extends 1100 meter radius.
Assuming this vaporizes the area, it will take 39,200,926 1 Megaton bombs to vaporize the planet.A 1 megaton bomb will produce a shock wave that will go 10 kilometers in radius.
It would take 474,331 1 Megaton bombs to rubble the planet.The US has about 10,000 as of 2007, and plans to have only 5,000 as of 2012.As for radiation effects.... http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3748014,00.htmlReferences:http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthhttp://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/estimates\_of\_us\_nuclear\_weapon.php</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175912</id>
	<title>Re:Man...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258750020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A century ago, wars were mostly fought between artillerists lobbing shells and shooting machine guns at the poor morons walking slowly across, and Bulgaria and Turkey were busy inventing aerial bombing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A century ago , wars were mostly fought between artillerists lobbing shells and shooting machine guns at the poor morons walking slowly across , and Bulgaria and Turkey were busy inventing aerial bombing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A century ago, wars were mostly fought between artillerists lobbing shells and shooting machine guns at the poor morons walking slowly across, and Bulgaria and Turkey were busy inventing aerial bombing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176170</id>
	<title>Re:Man...</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1258707960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;The internet is way over-rated.

You can do all those things you mention in WoW.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The internet is way over-rated .
You can do all those things you mention in WoW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;The internet is way over-rated.
You can do all those things you mention in WoW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30181040</id>
	<title>Re:God forbid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258729380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One theory of nuclear weapons that I'm sure you're aware of is mutually assured destruction.  The other guy won't attack you with nukes if he knows you'll just do the same and annihilate him.  But there's one problem: this requires that nuclear powers have second-strike capabilities.  If the first state manages to take out all of the target state's nukes, there is no more second strike capability and thus no mutually assured destruction.</p><p>I don't know what the numbers are, but assume your 20x is correct.  These weapons need to be spread out so that a first strike does not take them all out.  It's great if you have just enough nukes to destroy Russia, but what if Russia hits those nukes?  So you need to have nukes in various areas, and---this is the important part---you have to have enough of them in each area to properly respond.  This necessarily means redundancy.  MAD does not work if you can't have second-strike capability; and you simply have to have more than "enough" in order to assure that your entire arsenal isn't destroyed in one fell swoop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One theory of nuclear weapons that I 'm sure you 're aware of is mutually assured destruction .
The other guy wo n't attack you with nukes if he knows you 'll just do the same and annihilate him .
But there 's one problem : this requires that nuclear powers have second-strike capabilities .
If the first state manages to take out all of the target state 's nukes , there is no more second strike capability and thus no mutually assured destruction.I do n't know what the numbers are , but assume your 20x is correct .
These weapons need to be spread out so that a first strike does not take them all out .
It 's great if you have just enough nukes to destroy Russia , but what if Russia hits those nukes ?
So you need to have nukes in various areas , and---this is the important part---you have to have enough of them in each area to properly respond .
This necessarily means redundancy .
MAD does not work if you ca n't have second-strike capability ; and you simply have to have more than " enough " in order to assure that your entire arsenal is n't destroyed in one fell swoop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One theory of nuclear weapons that I'm sure you're aware of is mutually assured destruction.
The other guy won't attack you with nukes if he knows you'll just do the same and annihilate him.
But there's one problem: this requires that nuclear powers have second-strike capabilities.
If the first state manages to take out all of the target state's nukes, there is no more second strike capability and thus no mutually assured destruction.I don't know what the numbers are, but assume your 20x is correct.
These weapons need to be spread out so that a first strike does not take them all out.
It's great if you have just enough nukes to destroy Russia, but what if Russia hits those nukes?
So you need to have nukes in various areas, and---this is the important part---you have to have enough of them in each area to properly respond.
This necessarily means redundancy.
MAD does not work if you can't have second-strike capability; and you simply have to have more than "enough" in order to assure that your entire arsenal isn't destroyed in one fell swoop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176152</id>
	<title>Re:God forbid</title>
	<author>WAG24601G</author>
	<datestamp>1258707900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe I'm being naive, but detonation never seemed all that central to the value of nuclear weapons.  Let's face it, if we're ever in the situation where we decide Armageddon is the best option available, whether or not OUR weapons detonate is a triviality.  Nuclear weapons are most effective when they AREN'T being used and everyone wants to keep it that way.  So unless there's some a priori outward indication that our weapons <i>definitely won't</i> work, thus inviting an attack... nobody (including our enemies) really wants to find out the messy way.  Then again, maybe I'm assuming too much rationality for the men with the launch keys...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm being naive , but detonation never seemed all that central to the value of nuclear weapons .
Let 's face it , if we 're ever in the situation where we decide Armageddon is the best option available , whether or not OUR weapons detonate is a triviality .
Nuclear weapons are most effective when they ARE N'T being used and everyone wants to keep it that way .
So unless there 's some a priori outward indication that our weapons definitely wo n't work , thus inviting an attack... nobody ( including our enemies ) really wants to find out the messy way .
Then again , maybe I 'm assuming too much rationality for the men with the launch keys.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm being naive, but detonation never seemed all that central to the value of nuclear weapons.
Let's face it, if we're ever in the situation where we decide Armageddon is the best option available, whether or not OUR weapons detonate is a triviality.
Nuclear weapons are most effective when they AREN'T being used and everyone wants to keep it that way.
So unless there's some a priori outward indication that our weapons definitely won't work, thus inviting an attack... nobody (including our enemies) really wants to find out the messy way.
Then again, maybe I'm assuming too much rationality for the men with the launch keys...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176916</id>
	<title>Re:"Fixing the bombs fixes them!"</title>
	<author>Bakkster</author>
	<datestamp>1258710540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless, of course, there are non-serviceable parts that are degrading.  In other words, verifying that our weapons are able to be fixed for the forseeable future.
</p><p>For example, if the fissile material or shape charges degrade, you're not going to go about replacing them.  You'd just buld new ones, and in that case might as well design a better one from scratch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless , of course , there are non-serviceable parts that are degrading .
In other words , verifying that our weapons are able to be fixed for the forseeable future .
For example , if the fissile material or shape charges degrade , you 're not going to go about replacing them .
You 'd just buld new ones , and in that case might as well design a better one from scratch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless, of course, there are non-serviceable parts that are degrading.
In other words, verifying that our weapons are able to be fixed for the forseeable future.
For example, if the fissile material or shape charges degrade, you're not going to go about replacing them.
You'd just buld new ones, and in that case might as well design a better one from scratch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30178022</id>
	<title>Ok</title>
	<author>ShooterNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1258714200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So let me get this straight : the DoD wants new nukes because it can't guarantee that all of our bombs will necessarily go off due to aging.</p><p>But why does it matter if all our nukes detonate?  Is any enemy going to realistically attack us HOPING that all our bombs won't detonate or that the missiles won't work?  Even a partial failure of our attack would still cause more mass destruction than in all of human history.</p><p>Would you recommend attacking the Russians or the Chinese with a preemptive strike, hoping that their nukes didn't go off when they retaliate?  (after all, they have the same problems with aging we do, and possibly lower quality control)  I sure wouldn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So let me get this straight : the DoD wants new nukes because it ca n't guarantee that all of our bombs will necessarily go off due to aging.But why does it matter if all our nukes detonate ?
Is any enemy going to realistically attack us HOPING that all our bombs wo n't detonate or that the missiles wo n't work ?
Even a partial failure of our attack would still cause more mass destruction than in all of human history.Would you recommend attacking the Russians or the Chinese with a preemptive strike , hoping that their nukes did n't go off when they retaliate ?
( after all , they have the same problems with aging we do , and possibly lower quality control ) I sure would n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So let me get this straight : the DoD wants new nukes because it can't guarantee that all of our bombs will necessarily go off due to aging.But why does it matter if all our nukes detonate?
Is any enemy going to realistically attack us HOPING that all our bombs won't detonate or that the missiles won't work?
Even a partial failure of our attack would still cause more mass destruction than in all of human history.Would you recommend attacking the Russians or the Chinese with a preemptive strike, hoping that their nukes didn't go off when they retaliate?
(after all, they have the same problems with aging we do, and possibly lower quality control)  I sure wouldn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176674</id>
	<title>"Good"</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1258709820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good is such an.... "interesting" term.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good is such an.... " interesting " term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good is such an.... "interesting" term.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177972</id>
	<title>Problem wit this is...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1258714080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of when I heard this guy say they had backups at work, until they day they needed them to restore, and they found out the backups were no good. This lets me think sometimes to force a fake disaster or scenario to test the fail overs is good once in a while...<br>I wonder if we can start a war somewhere....?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of when I heard this guy say they had backups at work , until they day they needed them to restore , and they found out the backups were no good .
This lets me think sometimes to force a fake disaster or scenario to test the fail overs is good once in a while...I wonder if we can start a war somewhere.... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of when I heard this guy say they had backups at work, until they day they needed them to restore, and they found out the backups were no good.
This lets me think sometimes to force a fake disaster or scenario to test the fail overs is good once in a while...I wonder if we can start a war somewhere....?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177028</id>
	<title>The boredom problem</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1258710780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with nuclear weapons development is boredom.  It took a huge establishment to make the things, with way too many smart people.  The plants are run down or closed, and the smart people are retired or dead.
</p><p>
It's like NASA.  Who goes to work for NASA today?  At least NASA launches something once in a while.  Imagine going to work for Pantex and spending your whole life on refurb jobs.  That's not going to attract the best and the brightest.
</p><p>
Some of the bomb designs are "too clever".  The AEC had too many smart people around in the glory days, and some of the designs are more complex than they need to be.  The effort to shrink fusion bombs down to MIRV and cruise missile size resulted in some designs that took actual nuclear tests to validate and are hard to check without real tests.  That's why everyone is so nervous about keeping the old designs going.
Yes, there are simulations, but without tests, they're hard to validate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with nuclear weapons development is boredom .
It took a huge establishment to make the things , with way too many smart people .
The plants are run down or closed , and the smart people are retired or dead .
It 's like NASA .
Who goes to work for NASA today ?
At least NASA launches something once in a while .
Imagine going to work for Pantex and spending your whole life on refurb jobs .
That 's not going to attract the best and the brightest .
Some of the bomb designs are " too clever " .
The AEC had too many smart people around in the glory days , and some of the designs are more complex than they need to be .
The effort to shrink fusion bombs down to MIRV and cruise missile size resulted in some designs that took actual nuclear tests to validate and are hard to check without real tests .
That 's why everyone is so nervous about keeping the old designs going .
Yes , there are simulations , but without tests , they 're hard to validate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with nuclear weapons development is boredom.
It took a huge establishment to make the things, with way too many smart people.
The plants are run down or closed, and the smart people are retired or dead.
It's like NASA.
Who goes to work for NASA today?
At least NASA launches something once in a while.
Imagine going to work for Pantex and spending your whole life on refurb jobs.
That's not going to attract the best and the brightest.
Some of the bomb designs are "too clever".
The AEC had too many smart people around in the glory days, and some of the designs are more complex than they need to be.
The effort to shrink fusion bombs down to MIRV and cruise missile size resulted in some designs that took actual nuclear tests to validate and are hard to check without real tests.
That's why everyone is so nervous about keeping the old designs going.
Yes, there are simulations, but without tests, they're hard to validate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175582</id>
	<title>Re:Easy solution</title>
	<author>oh\_my\_080980980</author>
	<datestamp>1258748880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Call me when they have a reliable ICBM.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Call me when they have a reliable ICBM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call me when they have a reliable ICBM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175986</id>
	<title>Well yes, but...</title>
	<author>beatsme</author>
	<datestamp>1258750500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Glad to hear that guys.  Way to go.  Good work telling everyone that fixing things fixes them.</p></div><p>The conclusion isn't just that they're fixed. It's that because they are fix-able, that we don't need to pour money down the R&amp;D drain for modern variants, which would just sit on the same shelves these old ones now occupy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Glad to hear that guys .
Way to go .
Good work telling everyone that fixing things fixes them.The conclusion is n't just that they 're fixed .
It 's that because they are fix-able , that we do n't need to pour money down the R&amp;D drain for modern variants , which would just sit on the same shelves these old ones now occupy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glad to hear that guys.
Way to go.
Good work telling everyone that fixing things fixes them.The conclusion isn't just that they're fixed.
It's that because they are fix-able, that we don't need to pour money down the R&amp;D drain for modern variants, which would just sit on the same shelves these old ones now occupy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175304</id>
	<title>"Fixing the bombs fixes them!"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258748100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well yeah.  A program and procedure designed to keep the weaponry usable successfully keeps them usable.
<p>
Glad to hear that guys.  Way to go.  Good work telling everyone that fixing things fixes them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well yeah .
A program and procedure designed to keep the weaponry usable successfully keeps them usable .
Glad to hear that guys .
Way to go .
Good work telling everyone that fixing things fixes them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well yeah.
A program and procedure designed to keep the weaponry usable successfully keeps them usable.
Glad to hear that guys.
Way to go.
Good work telling everyone that fixing things fixes them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175750</id>
	<title>How convenient</title>
	<author>hansraj</author>
	<datestamp>1258749480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey we don't need to do further testing so everybody let's sign a deal saying no one would.</p><p>Fast forward a few years..</p><p>Hey our stockpiles are ageing. You know what guys, we would like to reserve the rights to do nuclear tests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey we do n't need to do further testing so everybody let 's sign a deal saying no one would.Fast forward a few years..Hey our stockpiles are ageing .
You know what guys , we would like to reserve the rights to do nuclear tests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey we don't need to do further testing so everybody let's sign a deal saying no one would.Fast forward a few years..Hey our stockpiles are ageing.
You know what guys, we would like to reserve the rights to do nuclear tests.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176418</id>
	<title>Supply Saddam.</title>
	<author>st0lenm0ments</author>
	<datestamp>1258708800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I still don't get what the US wants with over 10, 000 Nuclear weapons. Surely they could have supplied Iraq with a few so that weapons of mass destruction were actually found!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still do n't get what the US wants with over 10 , 000 Nuclear weapons .
Surely they could have supplied Iraq with a few so that weapons of mass destruction were actually found !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still don't get what the US wants with over 10, 000 Nuclear weapons.
Surely they could have supplied Iraq with a few so that weapons of mass destruction were actually found!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177396</id>
	<title>Re:God forbid</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1258712100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd imagine that they're more worried about what happens if you need to do a limited nuclear strike.  If your nukes have a 50\% failure rate you need to launch ten to ensure a 99.9\% chance of destroying the target.  Launching ten nukes at once is a lot more likely to start WWIII and chances are that several are going to work and you'll release a lot more radiation than you would with a single 99.9\% reliable nuke.  Plus, littering the ground with duds means an enemy will likely retrieve and reverse engineer one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd imagine that they 're more worried about what happens if you need to do a limited nuclear strike .
If your nukes have a 50 \ % failure rate you need to launch ten to ensure a 99.9 \ % chance of destroying the target .
Launching ten nukes at once is a lot more likely to start WWIII and chances are that several are going to work and you 'll release a lot more radiation than you would with a single 99.9 \ % reliable nuke .
Plus , littering the ground with duds means an enemy will likely retrieve and reverse engineer one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd imagine that they're more worried about what happens if you need to do a limited nuclear strike.
If your nukes have a 50\% failure rate you need to launch ten to ensure a 99.9\% chance of destroying the target.
Launching ten nukes at once is a lot more likely to start WWIII and chances are that several are going to work and you'll release a lot more radiation than you would with a single 99.9\% reliable nuke.
Plus, littering the ground with duds means an enemy will likely retrieve and reverse engineer one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30180426</id>
	<title>Re:A brief history of nuclear war...</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1258725180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I really only know about the land-based ICBMs, so with the caveat that this doesn't include our SLBMs (Trident) and strategic bombers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>So long story short, we used to have crazy big nuclear arsenals back in the really tense days of the Cold War. Today, we still have a scary big nuclear arsenal, but it has only about 1/10th the destructive power of our previous arsenal. That arsenal is still capable of making life on earth pretty miserable, but it's not going to level the globe.</p></div></blockquote><p>Pretty much the same is true of the SLBM's - we've gone from 41 subs w/ 16 tubes (656 tubes) to 16 subs w/24 tubes (384 tubes).<br>
&nbsp; <br>Gravity bombs are the same story - vast numbers have been decommissioned and recycled.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Tactical weapons (AFAPs and warheads for things like SUBROC) have essentially been eliminated entirely.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really only know about the land-based ICBMs , so with the caveat that this does n't include our SLBMs ( Trident ) and strategic bombers ...So long story short , we used to have crazy big nuclear arsenals back in the really tense days of the Cold War .
Today , we still have a scary big nuclear arsenal , but it has only about 1/10th the destructive power of our previous arsenal .
That arsenal is still capable of making life on earth pretty miserable , but it 's not going to level the globe.Pretty much the same is true of the SLBM 's - we 've gone from 41 subs w/ 16 tubes ( 656 tubes ) to 16 subs w/24 tubes ( 384 tubes ) .
  Gravity bombs are the same story - vast numbers have been decommissioned and recycled .
  Tactical weapons ( AFAPs and warheads for things like SUBROC ) have essentially been eliminated entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really only know about the land-based ICBMs, so with the caveat that this doesn't include our SLBMs (Trident) and strategic bombers ...So long story short, we used to have crazy big nuclear arsenals back in the really tense days of the Cold War.
Today, we still have a scary big nuclear arsenal, but it has only about 1/10th the destructive power of our previous arsenal.
That arsenal is still capable of making life on earth pretty miserable, but it's not going to level the globe.Pretty much the same is true of the SLBM's - we've gone from 41 subs w/ 16 tubes (656 tubes) to 16 subs w/24 tubes (384 tubes).
  Gravity bombs are the same story - vast numbers have been decommissioned and recycled.
  Tactical weapons (AFAPs and warheads for things like SUBROC) have essentially been eliminated entirely.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30178042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177102</id>
	<title>Re:honestty</title>
	<author>aussie\_a</author>
	<datestamp>1258711080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to the right to bear arms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the right to bear arms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the right to bear arms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30178974</id>
	<title>Fogbank?</title>
	<author>Lawrence\_Bird</author>
	<datestamp>1258717800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any mention of how they are going to continue to make that?  Or at least make it safely?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any mention of how they are going to continue to make that ?
Or at least make it safely ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any mention of how they are going to continue to make that?
Or at least make it safely?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175298</id>
	<title>FP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258748100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>frosty piss y'all!</htmltext>
<tokenext>frosty piss y'all !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>frosty piss y'all!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30179022</id>
	<title>Re:Not atypical</title>
	<author>Goldsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1258717980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excellent point that the base technology is unfortunately getting easier to achieve.</p><p>The continued training of engineers who can build nukes for us is one of the main points of the refurbishment program.  These Jason guys are pretty smart.  Their report mentions the main risk here is not losing the ability to blow people to bits, but loss of skills due to lack of support for the refurbishing (training) program.</p><p>Wasn't there something here on the NIF a while ago, and how they're working on alternative energy?  Hmmm.  Not underground, but those bangs are pretty useful to physicists who aren't working on alternative energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent point that the base technology is unfortunately getting easier to achieve.The continued training of engineers who can build nukes for us is one of the main points of the refurbishment program .
These Jason guys are pretty smart .
Their report mentions the main risk here is not losing the ability to blow people to bits , but loss of skills due to lack of support for the refurbishing ( training ) program.Was n't there something here on the NIF a while ago , and how they 're working on alternative energy ?
Hmmm. Not underground , but those bangs are pretty useful to physicists who are n't working on alternative energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent point that the base technology is unfortunately getting easier to achieve.The continued training of engineers who can build nukes for us is one of the main points of the refurbishment program.
These Jason guys are pretty smart.
Their report mentions the main risk here is not losing the ability to blow people to bits, but loss of skills due to lack of support for the refurbishing (training) program.Wasn't there something here on the NIF a while ago, and how they're working on alternative energy?
Hmmm.  Not underground, but those bangs are pretty useful to physicists who aren't working on alternative energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176944</id>
	<title>Nope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258710600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They will be Chinese made. The reason is that China is in active production of warheads. In fact, these are neutrons, so even better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They will be Chinese made .
The reason is that China is in active production of warheads .
In fact , these are neutrons , so even better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They will be Chinese made.
The reason is that China is in active production of warheads.
In fact, these are neutrons, so even better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176294</id>
	<title>Re:Man...</title>
	<author>init100</author>
	<datestamp>1258708380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>100 years ago? Where wars were fought on foot and were mostly civil wars, or simple trade disputes?</p></div><p>Yeah, like WWI (which started 95 years ago).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>100 years ago ?
Where wars were fought on foot and were mostly civil wars , or simple trade disputes ? Yeah , like WWI ( which started 95 years ago ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100 years ago?
Where wars were fought on foot and were mostly civil wars, or simple trade disputes?Yeah, like WWI (which started 95 years ago).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30183730</id>
	<title>Re:"Fixing the bombs fixes them!"</title>
	<author>MrPhilby</author>
	<datestamp>1258813740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice car analogy, but the cars are being used, whereas the bombs aren't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice car analogy , but the cars are being used , whereas the bombs are n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice car analogy, but the cars are being used, whereas the bombs aren't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177346</id>
	<title>Re:Easy solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258711920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why, do you need one for your yard?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why , do you need one for your yard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why, do you need one for your yard?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30178666</id>
	<title>Mod up parent</title>
	<author>bobs666</author>
	<datestamp>1258716480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is dead on.
the post I was about to make.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is dead on .
the post I was about to make .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is dead on.
the post I was about to make.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177368</id>
	<title>Re:Man...</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1258711980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sometimes I feel like I was born in the wrong century. The internet is way over-rated.</p></div><p>Be careful what you wish for; the stories of the "good old days" are most often promulgated by those who did not live during those centuries. Before industrialization, antibiotics, and the green revolution life was nasty, brutish, and short for 90\%+ of the population. If you don't believe that, then look at the one continent that has largely not experienced these modern benefits, Africa, and tell us that you would find life in some backwards village or the slums of Nairobi strangely romantic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes I feel like I was born in the wrong century .
The internet is way over-rated.Be careful what you wish for ; the stories of the " good old days " are most often promulgated by those who did not live during those centuries .
Before industrialization , antibiotics , and the green revolution life was nasty , brutish , and short for 90 \ % + of the population .
If you do n't believe that , then look at the one continent that has largely not experienced these modern benefits , Africa , and tell us that you would find life in some backwards village or the slums of Nairobi strangely romantic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes I feel like I was born in the wrong century.
The internet is way over-rated.Be careful what you wish for; the stories of the "good old days" are most often promulgated by those who did not live during those centuries.
Before industrialization, antibiotics, and the green revolution life was nasty, brutish, and short for 90\%+ of the population.
If you don't believe that, then look at the one continent that has largely not experienced these modern benefits, Africa, and tell us that you would find life in some backwards village or the slums of Nairobi strangely romantic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176104</id>
	<title>Re:Feeder Reactors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258707720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't we just use all our money to feed funders?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't we just use all our money to feed funders ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't we just use all our money to feed funders?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176598</id>
	<title>Re:Nuke advancement program.</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1258709520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am for regularly scheduled above ground nuclear testing.  All the films are old and grainy.  I want HDTV thermonuclear devestation.  If possible, I want to camp nearby ( but not too nearby ) and watch it.  And before you say: well X amount of people are going to die because of radioactive pollution, remember that those X people would have died from the pollution the observers would have caused doing whatever else they were going to do on vacation.  People get run over by cars heading to amusement parks.  The rides break.  Shit happens - deal with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am for regularly scheduled above ground nuclear testing .
All the films are old and grainy .
I want HDTV thermonuclear devestation .
If possible , I want to camp nearby ( but not too nearby ) and watch it .
And before you say : well X amount of people are going to die because of radioactive pollution , remember that those X people would have died from the pollution the observers would have caused doing whatever else they were going to do on vacation .
People get run over by cars heading to amusement parks .
The rides break .
Shit happens - deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am for regularly scheduled above ground nuclear testing.
All the films are old and grainy.
I want HDTV thermonuclear devestation.
If possible, I want to camp nearby ( but not too nearby ) and watch it.
And before you say: well X amount of people are going to die because of radioactive pollution, remember that those X people would have died from the pollution the observers would have caused doing whatever else they were going to do on vacation.
People get run over by cars heading to amusement parks.
The rides break.
Shit happens - deal with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175580</id>
	<title>Re:honestty</title>
	<author>Pentium100</author>
	<datestamp>1258748880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, having a nuke can tell others "don't send your nukes my way or I'll respond in kind, and we will both lose". It also deters conventional war because you wouldn't want to go to war with an enemy who has nukes and may use them if the war goes badly.</p><p>Not having nukes can invite an attack from an enemy who does have them ("I'll drop my nuke on you, and what you'll do about it?"), also conventional war becomes more possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , having a nuke can tell others " do n't send your nukes my way or I 'll respond in kind , and we will both lose " .
It also deters conventional war because you would n't want to go to war with an enemy who has nukes and may use them if the war goes badly.Not having nukes can invite an attack from an enemy who does have them ( " I 'll drop my nuke on you , and what you 'll do about it ?
" ) , also conventional war becomes more possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, having a nuke can tell others "don't send your nukes my way or I'll respond in kind, and we will both lose".
It also deters conventional war because you wouldn't want to go to war with an enemy who has nukes and may use them if the war goes badly.Not having nukes can invite an attack from an enemy who does have them ("I'll drop my nuke on you, and what you'll do about it?
"), also conventional war becomes more possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175302</id>
	<title>God forbid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258748100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We suddenly discover that 50\% of stockpile doesn't detonate, and we only have enough nuclear weapons to annihiliate the earth 20 times over.  Sometimes 20 just isn't enough!!</p><p>Especially when you factor in Russia's advanced ICBM-intercepting capabilities.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sarcasm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We suddenly discover that 50 \ % of stockpile does n't detonate , and we only have enough nuclear weapons to annihiliate the earth 20 times over .
Sometimes 20 just is n't enough !
! Especially when you factor in Russia 's advanced ICBM-intercepting capabilities .
/sarcasm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We suddenly discover that 50\% of stockpile doesn't detonate, and we only have enough nuclear weapons to annihiliate the earth 20 times over.
Sometimes 20 just isn't enough!
!Especially when you factor in Russia's advanced ICBM-intercepting capabilities.
/sarcasm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176244</id>
	<title>Re:What if nobody knew?</title>
	<author>pavon</author>
	<datestamp>1258708200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then the ostrich who takes it's head out of the sand first wins, and everyone else loses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then the ostrich who takes it 's head out of the sand first wins , and everyone else loses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then the ostrich who takes it's head out of the sand first wins, and everyone else loses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30179030</id>
	<title>Re:honestty</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1258717980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is why ideally every country on Earth should have nuclear weapons.</p><p>Thought so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why ideally every country on Earth should have nuclear weapons.Thought so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is why ideally every country on Earth should have nuclear weapons.Thought so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177908</id>
	<title>Re:"Fixing the bombs fixes them!"</title>
	<author>FredThompson</author>
	<datestamp>1258713840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My background: ex-ICBM launch officer and part of a team which designed some support equipment</p><p>My comment: Bingo. The issue isn't so much the warhead "baby", it's everything else which helps it go boom when, where how, and under whose authority it should go boom.</p><p>Almost every device becomes inefficient over time. Material stress, physical degradation and decreased efficiency over time are why you don't see many automobiles manufactured in 1947 still being used as daily transportation. The same applies to supersonic air delivery systems and support equipment.</p><p>Intellectually simplistic or downright stupid comments such as the ones which claim we have X number of nukes needed to destroy all life on the planet are lazy and/or suicidal. The same could be said about salt as the US possess far more salt than is necessary to kill every mammal on the planet many times over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My background : ex-ICBM launch officer and part of a team which designed some support equipmentMy comment : Bingo .
The issue is n't so much the warhead " baby " , it 's everything else which helps it go boom when , where how , and under whose authority it should go boom.Almost every device becomes inefficient over time .
Material stress , physical degradation and decreased efficiency over time are why you do n't see many automobiles manufactured in 1947 still being used as daily transportation .
The same applies to supersonic air delivery systems and support equipment.Intellectually simplistic or downright stupid comments such as the ones which claim we have X number of nukes needed to destroy all life on the planet are lazy and/or suicidal .
The same could be said about salt as the US possess far more salt than is necessary to kill every mammal on the planet many times over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My background: ex-ICBM launch officer and part of a team which designed some support equipmentMy comment: Bingo.
The issue isn't so much the warhead "baby", it's everything else which helps it go boom when, where how, and under whose authority it should go boom.Almost every device becomes inefficient over time.
Material stress, physical degradation and decreased efficiency over time are why you don't see many automobiles manufactured in 1947 still being used as daily transportation.
The same applies to supersonic air delivery systems and support equipment.Intellectually simplistic or downright stupid comments such as the ones which claim we have X number of nukes needed to destroy all life on the planet are lazy and/or suicidal.
The same could be said about salt as the US possess far more salt than is necessary to kill every mammal on the planet many times over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175350</id>
	<title>Not atypical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258748280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many programs which require significant development, and then get shelved into "production" with no push to advance or modernize fall prey to this. NASA maned spaceflight vehicles is a prime example.</p><p>If you only need to do research and development once every 25-50 years you end up starting nearly from scratch every time you decide to upgrade. Now, I'm not advocating some kind of special nuclear bomb advancement program. Still, by the time somebody wants to "replace" these, there will be nobody left who actually worked on them tom begin with. Humans are particularly bad at passing this kind of knowledge over extended time gaps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many programs which require significant development , and then get shelved into " production " with no push to advance or modernize fall prey to this .
NASA maned spaceflight vehicles is a prime example.If you only need to do research and development once every 25-50 years you end up starting nearly from scratch every time you decide to upgrade .
Now , I 'm not advocating some kind of special nuclear bomb advancement program .
Still , by the time somebody wants to " replace " these , there will be nobody left who actually worked on them tom begin with .
Humans are particularly bad at passing this kind of knowledge over extended time gaps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many programs which require significant development, and then get shelved into "production" with no push to advance or modernize fall prey to this.
NASA maned spaceflight vehicles is a prime example.If you only need to do research and development once every 25-50 years you end up starting nearly from scratch every time you decide to upgrade.
Now, I'm not advocating some kind of special nuclear bomb advancement program.
Still, by the time somebody wants to "replace" these, there will be nobody left who actually worked on them tom begin with.
Humans are particularly bad at passing this kind of knowledge over extended time gaps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177222</id>
	<title>Re:God forbid</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1258711560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is true. However, as you pointed out, our enemies (and our friends) must be confident that our weapons would work, <i>should we need to use them</i>, in order to ensure their continued effectiveness as a deterrent against first-strikes. It is also important to reiterate to the Ahmadinejads of the world that we <i>will</i> retaliate with overwhelming force, including possibly a reciprocal nuclear strike, in response any first-strikes against us or our allies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is true .
However , as you pointed out , our enemies ( and our friends ) must be confident that our weapons would work , should we need to use them , in order to ensure their continued effectiveness as a deterrent against first-strikes .
It is also important to reiterate to the Ahmadinejads of the world that we will retaliate with overwhelming force , including possibly a reciprocal nuclear strike , in response any first-strikes against us or our allies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is true.
However, as you pointed out, our enemies (and our friends) must be confident that our weapons would work, should we need to use them, in order to ensure their continued effectiveness as a deterrent against first-strikes.
It is also important to reiterate to the Ahmadinejads of the world that we will retaliate with overwhelming force, including possibly a reciprocal nuclear strike, in response any first-strikes against us or our allies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176152</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30178462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30181040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30183730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30181094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30180426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30178042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30178666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30179030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30191040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30180540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30178984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30179022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1652254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30181584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1652254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177908
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30183730
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30181094
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30181584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1652254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1652254.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1652254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1652254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176968
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30179022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1652254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1652254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1652254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30178666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1652254.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30181040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30178462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30178984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30180540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30178042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30180426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1652254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1652254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1652254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1652254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1652254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1652254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30191040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1652254.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30175580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30179030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30176034
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177102
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1652254.30177250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
