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: Mr. Whist who wrote (3948)	2/2/2001 1:17:34 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

>>When's the last time this country was attacked?<< December 7, 1941, if you don't count the World Trade Center.

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (3948)	2/2/2001 8:28:49 AM
From: TH	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

flap, "When's the last time this country was attacked? War of 1812?" IMO, anytime a serviceman, regardless of his geography, is attacked then our country has been attacked. We must be prepared to respond to those attacks in both defense of our borders and in protecting our international presence. I somewhat agree on your point regarding the Maginot line. Of course that was a very poor idea which ignored a huge weak "link" in the chain. Still I agree that a national missile defense system is probably not the best idea. Find a way to get the guy with two suitcases. He will probably be the next to attack on US soil. IMO, at least a task equal in difficulty to producing an effective missile defense system. Probably much more difficult. In any event, I actually agree with most everything in this post. A rare event indeed -g- TH

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (3948)	2/2/2001 8:59:20 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 59480

R&D is always, at some point, ten percent fact and ninety percent science fiction. Taking your point of view, we would not have jet propulsion, radar, or telecommunications satellites. But what you say is not even true. There are deployable systems, it is just a matter of accuracy. With current or easily foreseeable technology, we cannot much exceed a kill rate of about 90%, and we want to improve on that. As for deterrence, that presumes a relatively stable situation. We are concerned now with unstable regimes and rogue action. Even prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union, though, there was an obvious advantage, insofar as it complicated the situation for our adversaries. The argument of the Union of Concerned Scientists was that prior to deployment the Soviets would face a "use them or lose them" situation, and therefore that the threat of a strike was increased. So much for deterrence. Of course, the other argument was that of counter- measures rendering our defenses obsolete. Well, that presupposes that the other party has the technological base and sheer material resources to compete. I believe that the Soviets calculated that they could not do so, and that that led to the ascent of Gorbachev, perestroika and glasnost, and, eventually, the breakup of the Soviet Union. Remember how Gorbachev torpedoed a comprehensive strategic arms reduction agreement at Reykjavik over SDI? They were frightened. The Maginot Line is so different in nature that it is useless as an analogy. The problem there was reliance on fixed fortifications, that could too easily be eluded by the Germans if they came through Belgium. What that particular strategic miscalculation has to do with SDI is exactly nothing. It is true that weapons of mass destruction can still penetrate the continent through smuggling. That is simply a different, albeit frightening, problem. The price tag is outrageous? Well, we are spending plenty on supercolliders, for example, merely to pursue basic research without promise of application. At least in the case of SDI, there is the likelihood of spin- off applications in robotics, lasers, and the like. We will almost certainly come out ahead in the long run. How to decide if the price is outrageous, though. On an annual basis, how much of the budget is committed to SDI related research? And how much of that research would probably go on under a different aegis anyway? I don't know, do you? Cobe adequately answered the attack question, but the main thing to notice is that the question is absurd. We are not invulnerable to attack. Rather, we have done a pretty good job of protecting ourselves. That is the intent in the case of SDI, to continue to look for ways to prevent attack, or minimize its impact........