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

To: Ilaine who wrote (3767)	1/29/2001 4:43:02 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 59480

Wouldn't it be fairer to say that you are inclined to believe Dr. Postol rather than the Pentagon, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, etc., etc., etc.? Maybe because he's telling you what you want to hear and they aren't? No, it wouldn't be fair, though I've been anticipating that. I am particularly inclined to believe the scientist who lost her job after not supporting her employer's position. I suspect Postol himself could be better off financially supporting the program than not - billion dollar projects can provide a lot of high paid positions for scientists. What are you gonna do with a PhD in physics - it seems to me your job prospects are limited to university, government, or defense industry positions. Where is the big money? It's in the defense companies. Now as to the defense companies, I am inclined to suspect their prime interest is getting big contracts. Re. the Pentagon, I note there is some divided opinion - and I would be concerned that some opinion may be thinking of post-retirement career prospects. Now, would it be fair to say that your position is simply one of being for the "conservative" side of the issue regardless of the merits? Personally, I reiterate - I think an impenetrable missile shield would be great to have. But I hate to see the country spend billions upon billions on something that is not only worthless but is downright dangerous if you are foolish enough to rely upon it. Of course, even if we did have that impenetrable missile shield - unfortunately, there are so many ways to deliver weapons, nuclear or biological. You could float a mass destruction weapon into any harbor in the US, heck you could even take it up the Mississippi or fly it in in a small plane. It's a dangerous and scary world. Oh btw, I have known one nuclear physicist. And as it turns out, he was an arrogant guy. But I wouldn't want to generalize on the basis of one guy.

To: Ilaine who wrote (3767)	1/29/2001 4:43:55 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 59480

Wouldn't it be fairer to say that you are inclined to believe Dr. Postol rather than the Pentagon, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, etc., etc., etc.? Maybe because he's telling you what you want to hear and they aren't? No, it wouldn't be fair, though I've been anticipating that. I am particularly inclined to believe the scientist who lost her job after not supporting her employer's position. I suspect Postel himself could be better off financially supporting the program than not - billion dollar projects can provide a lot of high paid positions for scientists. What are you gonna do with a PhD in physics - it seems to me your job prospects are limited to university, government, or defense industry positions. Where is the big money? It's in the defense companies. Now as to the defense companies, I am inclined to suspect their prime interest is getting big contracts. Re. the Pentagon, I note there is some divided opinion - and I would be concerned that some opinion may be thinking of post-retirement career prospects. Now, would it be fair to say that your position is simply one of being for the "conservative" side of the issue regardless of the merits? Personally, I reiterate - I think an impenetrable missile shield would be great to have. But I hate to see the country spend billions upon billions on something that is not only worthless but is downright dangerous if you are foolish enough to rely upon it. Of course, even if we did have that impenetrable missile shield - unfortunately, there are so many ways to deliver weapons, nuclear or biological. You could float a mass destruction weapon into any harbor in the US, heck you could even take it up the Mississippi or fly it in in a small plane. It's a dangerous and scary world.