Re:Re: China & Vietnam

[Dang Ho <dangho@utkux.utcc.utk.edu>]

I don't think Vietnam should need to have nuclear weapon at this point.
The fact is that it's very costly and very immoral to play with this
stuffs. We should not creat a second Manhattan Project. Instead we need a
good Pressurized Water Reactor than can provide at least 1500MWe power to
serve the country's economy. Most of the power plan was getting old and
can't keep up with the high demand of city people. Look around, how many
power plant are there in the country? Not much, right? This is what's we
need a Nuclear Power Reactor. A typical power reactor takes very long time
to build but it's very safe if we know how to operate it right, not making
mistake like the Russian did in Chelnobyl in 1985.

I'm a Nuclear Engineer myself. I'm opposing building a weapon is good
choice to do. Scientists who worked under the Manhattan project (The Fat
man and the Little boy) were the 2 nuclear bombs dropped over Japan,
these scientists did not know that they make a bomb at the time. We should
not need these stuffs again in the modern world. The U.S. is now having
almost 200 metric tons of Plutonium weapon grade of this stuff that need
to get rid of from the cold war.

I can go on forever on this stuffs but I have to get back with by works.
I'm sorry that I could not write in Vietnames phonetic code.  

On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 Yurong@oes.itri.org.tw wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cha`o ba'c dang @ quickturn.com
> >-Die^^`u ba^^'t ha.nh nha^^'t cu?a VN co' le~
> >la` bi. la`m la'ng gie^^`ng vo*'i chu' kho^^?ng lo^^` Ta`u\.  Mo^^.t nga`y na`o
> >chu' Ta`u kho^^ng "diet (gia?m ca^^n)" thi` VN mi`nh co`n bi. a(n hie^^'p da`i
> >da`i\.  Vi` va^^.y QA nghi~ ra(`ng mi`nh pha?i ti`m ca'ch pha^^n nu*o*'c Ta`u
> >tha`nh nhie^^`u nu*o*'c con con\.  Ne^^'u mi`nh co' ca'ch na`o khuye^^'n khi'ch
> >da^^n thie^^?u so^^' o*? Ta`u no^^?i le^^n -do`i quye^^`n tu*. tri. thi` hay bie^^'t
> >ma^^'y\.
> U+`, chuye^^.n na`y thi` ai cu~ng bie^^'t, My~ Nha^^.t ddang la`m ma`\. Chuye^^.n
> Peaceful Evolution (Die^^~n bie^^'n hoa` bi`nh- chu+~ "Hoa` bi`nh" dda^^y la`
> "im la(.ng, -a^^m tha^^`m, -kho^^ng tie^^'ng su'ng, -e^^m dde^^`m, -bi`nh an, -tu+`
> tu+`",
> "Die^^~n bie^^'n" la` bie^^'n ddo^^?i, bie^^'n da.ng, bie^^'n ra- Nguye^^n chu+~ Ta`u
> cu?a 4 chu+~ na`y la` "Hoa` bi`nh die^^~n bie^^'n") na`y cu~ng ddang die^^~n tie^^'n
> dda^^'y\. Nguye^^n ca? kho^^'i USSR tan ra~ cu~ng vi` va^^.y\
> O+` ma` chi? nhu+ va^^.y, VN mo+'i so^^'ng no^^?i, chu+ Ta`u ma` lo+'n ra, ddu+`ng
> no'i chi? VN so+., ai cu~Ng so+.
> 
> >Mo^^.t ca'ch nu*~a la` mi`nh co' -du*o*.c va`i qua? bom nguye^^n tu*?\.  Mi`nh
> >chi? vie^^.c ca('m 1 qua? o*? Hoa`ng Sa, 1 qua? o*? Tru*o*`ng Sa, va`i qua?
> >o*? bie^^n gio*'i VN-Ta`u, thi` mi`nh cha? co' gi` pha?i so*., cu`ng la('m la`
> >che^^'t chung\.  70 trie^^.u -do^^?i 1 ty? mi`nh lo*`i cha'n!  Kho^^ng bie^^'t co'
> >ba'c dhs na`o ho.c ve^^` nga`nh va^^.t ly' nguye^^n tu*? kho^^ng\?  Co' le~ VN
> >ne^^n ho.c ca'ch che^^' bom nguye^^n tu*?\.
> >
> Kho^^ng lo+`i dda^^u ba'c o+i. Ba'c co`n nho+ ca^^u no'i ru`ng ro+.n cu?a Mao
> Tra.ch
> DDo^^ng kho^^ng nhi?, "O+? dda^^u co' ma(.t tro+`i, o+? ddo' co' da^^n Ta`u"\.
> 70T da^^n Vie^^.t che^^'t he^^'t, da^^n Ta`u va^^~n co`n ma`\. Va? la.i no^^? bom
> nguye^^n tu+?, ca'c nu+o+'c kha'c che^^'t la^^y, ho. dda^^u dde^^? ye^^n cho ta\.
> 
> Cha`o tha^^n
> Vinh
> 
> 
>