Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chalu2 who wrote (15084)	3/13/2000 8:15:00 AM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

You must work in either academe or government. Only in those places is "proactive" considered a real word.

To: chalu2 who wrote (15084)	3/13/2000 9:35:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769667

Well, I am not going to argue against preparing for all plausible threats, but it is worthwhile to have a clearer idea of the main problems we will deal with when determining force structures, establishing R&D priorities, and so forth. I would say that proliferation is not primarily a military problem, for example, but an intelligence, law enforcement, and diplomatic problem. To the extent that it is military, it involves hastening the development of ABM systems. We have pretty much exhausted our role in the Balkans, and it should increasingly be viewed as a European problem, and moved out of NATO's purview. China is mainly a naval problem; the Middle East, which has even greater salience due to the development of the Caspian oil fields, is primarily a rapid response problem; and so on. (This is just to suggest why defining the threats is important). Anyway, yes, we need to spend more money on defense, but it is not clear that it is incompatible with tax cuts. There are many things in Washington that are duplicative of state functions, or otherwise of debatable worth.......