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: pgerassi who wrote (130232)	1/2/2001 11:14:30 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572571

Very scientific exposition there, Pete. So, what you're saying is, we should give the military industrial complex a few hundred billion to play horse with, and hope it all works out? You do know the distinction between deployment and R&D,don't you? Liquid Hydrogen at the corner filling station is looking better all the time.

To: pgerassi who wrote (130232)	1/2/2001 8:38:32 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572571

Re: Heck Edison tried over 10,000 different materials before he found one that worked for his light bulbs That's more than we can afford. The money that will be required to try out 10,000 different approaches to shooting down missiles, at a couple of $Billion each, will bankrupt our society. Building a successful anti-missile system probably can't be done and aggressively trying to do so will probably cause the Russians to bombard us with nuclear warheads first - just in case we can build such a system. I just don't think it's a good idea. What would be OK would be research, with no hardware built and only in close co-operation with the Russians (so they don't get scared and kill all of us). But the forces driving this process are defense contractors that are far more interested in building several hundred Billion dollars worth of hardware - regardless or whether or not it works. If we are going to pour money into something, why not fusion or a clean form of fission power? Success in that area could be transferred worldwide and might reduce some of the economic pressures that make attacks on the US likely. Desperate people watching their children starve perform desperate acts and this might reduce some of those pressures. It would also cost less. Dan

To: pgerassi who wrote (130232)	1/2/2001 8:39:53 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572571

Re: Heck Edison tried over 10,000 different materials before he found one that worked for his light bulbs That's more than we can afford. The money that will be required to try out 10,000 different approaches to shooting down missiles, at a couple of $Billion each, will bankrupt our society. Building a successful anti-missile system probably can't be done and aggressively trying to do so will probably cause the Russians to bombard us with nuclear warheads first - just in case we can build such a system. I just don't think it's a good idea. What would be OK would be research, with no hardware built and only in close co-operation with the Russians (so they don't get scared and kill all of us). But the forces driving this process are defense contractors that are far more interested in building several hundred Billion dollars worth of hardware - regardless or whether or not it works. If we are going to pour money into something, why not fusion or a clean form of fission power? Success in that area could be transferred worldwide and might reduce some of the economic pressures that make attacks on the US likely. Desperate people watching their children starve perform desperate acts and this might reduce some of those pressures. It would also cost less. Dan