Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: tejek who wrote (130091)	12/29/2000 5:41:26 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 1571564

Your question was no longer significant to the discussion....it was determined that any defense system will be ineffective. That depends on what you mean by determined. Some people discussing the issue determined that but they held that opinion before the conversation started. There has been no consensus that a missle defence would be ineffective. We have no system that is active and deplyed that can take out an incoming ICBM. We can take out ICBMs, if we hit them before they launch but that generally would not be considered a defense but rather a preemptive attack. Who cares about GNP.....much of the $$$ made in the GNP doesn't go into the gov't's coffers. The percentage of the GNP or GDP is the important stat for determineing the burden on the economy. If we spend less on corperate subsidies or other discressionary spending the % of the budget spent on defense would go up but that doesn't mean the burden of the defense budget on the economy has increased. And there we so defense took up 16% of over 1 trillion dollars budgeted. And that's okay? If you do want to focus on % of the budget that much then I will mention that % of the budget spent on defense by the US has gone down a lot, and is also much less then that was spent by the USSR. (and so that we don't get in to an argument about the relevance of the % figure for the USSR, I remeind you that you brought up the argument that one country went down the tubes because of defense spedning (taht one country being the USSR) and that it could become two with what we spend on defense). The above paragraph from the book is said in a tone of sarcasm. Reagan's expenditures for defense did little to bring down Russia because it was already crumbling on its own. All the military rhetoric re Russia from the early 80's, that was coined as insider info was, in fact, bull. However, Reagan decided to take this info on face value, and build a huge arsenal of weapons.....doing his share in increasing our deficit so that now we pay 11% of over 1 trillion dollars towards interest. The Soviet Union was crumbling economicly but was still powerful militarily. The spening was justified to counter the military potential of the USSR. Also it pushed the Soviets to spend even more then they would have on the military and helped push them into thinking reform of their country was nessiary (they would need a reformed economy to be able to compete with the West), those reforms were not intended to eliminate the communist regime but they were not as easily controled as Gorbachov thought they would be. Had Reagan done just a little research he would have found out that Russia's economy was not on the level of a Japan but rather Mexico; Even more of a reason while Regan was able to chalange the USSR and help push thier system over the brink. Such waste..... such bullshit.....we put ancient Rome in its worst days to shame. Ancient Rome at its most decadent had its military decay, that was why it became vunerable to the invadeing barbarians. Barbarians had been at the border for hundreds of years but at the end Rome was no longer able to fight them off because Rome had become weak. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next