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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (2124)	10/11/2000 10:48:31 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

It's a system that sounds, well, mad, but it has proven very effective Indeed it has.... but possession of nuclear weapons does not necessarily mean that a nation will use them. Take Israel, for example. We know they have them, the Arabs know they have them. But yet, they haven't used them. For the Israelis, they are a kind of doomsday device, in that if they are threatened with destruction... Well, by god, they're going to take everyone along with them. And yes, some claim that NMD will disrupt the Balance of Terror. But then again, rogue nations such as Iraq, N. Korea, Iran... and others are seeking that little "equalizer" that gives them clout on the global political landscape. But on the other hand, maybe such a system in the hands of the US, which is hardly likely to launch a pre-emptive strike against China or Russia, could be a useful tool in which we promise to "protect other nations" as well, to include them. That makes us the equivalent of the global missile "cop", keeping the peace around the globe. They rant and they rave, but the Chinese know we would rather compete on the economic front, rather than "nuking 'em" just for the hell of it. We just have to be careful how we wield such power so as not to utterly cause them serious loss of face...

To: Dayuhan who wrote (2124)	10/11/2000 2:54:02 PM
From: Hoa Hao	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

NMD is the way to go. The loss of the 1960 election by the Republicans to the Democrats prolonged the cold war 20 years. A vote against NMD is a vote for the strategic insights of Robert McNamara, the fellow who gave us Vietnam, and a malfunctioning M-16. The US could have had a cheap, functioning ABM system right now which would still be viable against the threat we are testing for. Unknown to most, is that the US successfully shot down a Soviet ICBM. As for the question of smuggling in WMD, one has to ask another. Why has it not been done already?? The capacity to manufacture suitcase Nukes has been around for decades. Could it be that it is harder to do then one thinks?? Would You as leader of, say, N. Korea want to put a nuke on a slow boat to the US, not knowing if something might "Happen" to it enroute?? Like be hijacked and sent Back at You??