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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (130005)	12/20/2000 10:08:14 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571051

Do you really believe that a country attacking the US will attack with only one missile? One missile could be launched if a nuclear power loses control of some of its arsenal or by accident. Also it could just be threatened if the person controling that one nuclear missile thought that the president of the US at the time would back down. Tim, First of all, your scenario is very far fetched. But even if it were to happen, we have missiles beyond the Patriot that can take out other missiles over long distances......the Patriot is more a short range missile. Now I don't know the name of it and I don't have the time to look it up but it exists. In fact, we have an incredibly strong defense and a huge arsenal. We think of nothing spending of spending more and more $$$ for bigger and better destructive machines, and yet we balk at every step in building the space center or traveling to Mars....two goals that will have significant benefit to us in many ways....and I suspect the cost of which comes out of the non defense portion of the budget. Let me assure you that I am not against defense at all but not at the expense of everything else, particularly in the absense of a viable enemy. ted