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: Alighieri who wrote (130120)	12/28/2000 4:03:46 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1571808

The thread's objections to a SDI defense system so far have been argued on the notion that the scientific community is unable to develop a viable system...and points have been made stating that this the primary reason a system has not been deployed. Readings on the topic tend to address the political obstacles as much as, if not more than, the technical challenges. Al, From what I have read, a missile is capable of knocking out an air target...whether it be a missile, plane, weather balloon etc. I think where the technology is deficient is discerning between a nuclear loaded missile vs a weather balloon where there is a large number of incoming. From what I understand, it was that deficiency coupled with the collapse of Russia that led to the mothballing of star wars. I am unwilling to accept that technical failure is a foregone conclusion. I believe (on faith) that a system at some level could be developed, though probably not 100% effective. I also accept the notion of rogue acts (UPS, Fed-Ex, suitcases, bomb in a bottle, etc..) which may not be defensable...and while possibly viable, such arguments don't justify not working on SDI. Russia or China would probably not deliver weapons that way. Although I have not seen a percentage, I think the deficiency was much less than 100%. ted