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: tejek who wrote (131146)	1/31/2001 12:06:02 PM
From: pgerassi	Respond to of 1572360

Dear Ted: Why do you persist in thinking that a limited missile defense means that MAD would not still work? The underlying principal of MAD is that, if the enemy launches any strike, you still have the ability to assure destruction of the enemy. Russia can fire hundreds of missiles at us in one blow even, if we fired first. No limited missile defense would be able to stop it. Ditto, for China. Thus a limited missile defense does not destroy MAD with the larger opponents. All it does is protect against those with at most, a few missiles, or an accidental single missile launch by anyone. The threat of these two is much higher than a first strike by China or Russia. Mostly because they know, they would be totally destroyed and we would not be gainsayed by anyone for doing it. But what of a single launch by Iraq, North Korea, or some other idiot? Would we be able to order a large strike against them? Especially if, we are friends with a close neighbor? If by blasting the enemy, the fallout would normally cover our friends and the toxic results wash down rivers (etc.) to them, would we have to use a far more costly invasion, repair, and nation rebuilding campaign? And what do you tell to our victims? Sorry does not seem to cover it. What if the target was Boston or some other Democratic stronghold and a million or more died? Another million or so would now be likely to have health problems the rest of their unnaturally shorter lives. Just so you could save a few billion to help some thousands of seniors who have less than a day to live? Pete