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: Hawkmoon who wrote (2143)	10/11/2000 10:32:33 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

The NMD will do nothing to stop nuclear proliferation. Iraq, N. Korea, and Iran will still want nuclear weapons, even if they can't use them on us. They can't use them on us already, even without the NMD, not without being incinerated, and leaders of rogue states are no more interested in being incinerated than leaders of non-rogue states. 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. We can barely afford an NMD that would protect us against a few incoming missiles. I doubt that we would spend for one that would protect our allies. The US is not likely to launch a pre-emptive strike; we might imaginably use the threat capability that we would gain from having a nuclear offense that is not constrained by fear of retaliation. Many in the world think that this is simply more power than any nation should have, and they are well aware that power can corrupt. Me may not want to yield to that concern, but it is not entirely illegitimate, and we need to address it.