SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ilaine who wrote (3749)1/29/2001 11:32:31 AM
From: Magnatizer  Respond to of 59480
 
CobaltBlue

I wholeheartedly agree. When China warned us not to go further with the MDS I knew it was a good system.

One more negative about China... Thanks to Jimmy Carter's ineptitude in recognizing their (china's) desire for world domination we are now faced with China controlling the most important ocean connection in the world. This being the Panama canal. It is now controlled by the Chinese. Not only does this allow them the ability to first strike the canal in order to destroy it, but they can also sneak missiles into Cuba more easily using the canal as safe passage.

The short range missiles which could be fired from mobile transports in Cuba would likely pass under the MDS shield.

So where does this leave the US... I would say we better be damn well prepared to blanket Cuba with some serious force at a moments notice.

ht
Mag



To: Ilaine who wrote (3749)1/29/2001 11:50:35 AM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 59480
 
Allegations that missile defense systems won't work have been made since the idea to make them was conceived - it's disinformation designed to bamboozle at least some of the population in the hope that they will oppose it, possibly causing the plans to be dropped, or at least delayed.
Consider the source.


Consider the source is indeed good advice. Here's a source:

gn.apc.org

One of the sources quoted is Theodore A. Postol, an arms expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who opposes the weapon.

More info about Postol:

Postol, a professor of science and national security studies at MIT and the author of many private and federal weapon reports, was a top Navy science adviser in the Reagan administration and has studied the issue of enemy countermeasures to anti-missile weapons for decades.
After the 1991 Gulf War, he challenged the Army's claims of success for its Patriot anti-missile system, saying it had, in fact, destroyed no Iraqi missiles. Though the Pentagon at first denied his assertions, it later conceded that initial reports of the Patriot success had been exaggerated.


Another source from the link I posted:

Nira Schwartz. A former senior engineer at the defense contractor TRW, Schwartz lost her job after challenging the claims the company was making about the weapon.

And another:

Michael W. Munn, a retired scientist for the defense contractor Lockheed and a pioneer in designing and testing anti-missile weapons, said, ``The only way to make it work is to dumb it down. There's no other way to do it. Discrimination has always been the No. 1 problem, and it will always remain that way.''

Can't help but find these sources somewhat impressive.

Bruce