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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rich4eagle who wrote (123922)	1/26/2001 8:42:11 PM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 769670

The idea is to be forward looking, not play catch-up to the threat of the moment. It appears that the 21st century threats will not come from major power confrontations, but from new upstart proliferation states and international organizations. Yes, the suitcase nuke scenario is a very real threat. But the threat of rogue ICBMs is also a threat, not now but we do not know what the world will look like in 10 years, 20 years, or 50. In brief, you are being short sighted and have a narrow range of what you will accept as a threat. I consider even the possibility of an ICBM in the hands of an unstable regime a threat that should be countered. Whether or not missile defense is the answer for this, is what should be debated, not whether or not it is a threat at all, which it definately is. You imply that butter may work better than guns against certain kinds of threats, which I agree wholeheartedly with. I also would qualify that with this - there are individuals, organizations, and states that can not or may not be swayed by such rational appeals. THAT is the danger. You have to recognize that there are individuals and groups in the world who are not motivated by what we would consider reasonable ends, and whose reasoning is not influenced by considerations of self-preservation and the welfare of other human lives. You must also recognize that proliferation of nuclear and ballistic technologies into the hands of immature and unstable regimes poses a great threat. What was one of our greatest concerns during the break up of the USSR? That the deterioration of the state would result in some ghastly collapse in command and control, whether by design or accident, and would result in the launch of one or more ICBMs targeted on the US. Now, imagine that scenario with a state that did not have the maturity and discipline of the Russian military. There are simply too many possible scenarios where we would be up a sheet creek. Derek