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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (3142)	5/18/2001 3:51:10 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

rogue states are not insane, but they are reckless, I must admit that the closer Yasser Arafat comes to dying of natural causes, the less afraid he is of dying in battle. Still this does not make right the old Republican tactic of saying "As long as they don't know it doesn't work it's a good idea" version of lying to America a good idea. Dropping that fiction and releasing some of the research was a major cause of the Clinton robust economy. We will win more by making the rogue nations emulate the U.S. then we will a stupidly planned missle defence. MTV will win over the Iranians before Lockheed will. TP

To: Neocon who wrote (3142)	5/23/2001 9:37:40 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Our deterrence was based on mutually assured destruction, the other stuff is fluff. Sites were hardened enough, communications was survivable enough the platforms were diverse enough that either side was still left with enough weapons to obliterate the other side. As each side has brought down it's inventory, BMD begins to have relevance in that notion. If the inventories are small enough a BMD can in fact give a side an edge in winning that can only be overcome by saturiating the system; hence an arms race begins. If you bring up the promises of shared defense against the rogue nation issue, one can point to our promises/agreements to not disable GPS in a conflict situation. While the agreements are in place, every country believes the US would abandon those agreeements if pressed. This administration has enforced that concept by merely pointing to the ABM treaty and saying it's out of date/no longer meaningfull. Back to deterrence. A rogue nation is a different concept of deterrence altogether. A single or very few weapons can be delivered through a variety of means. ICBMs or intermediate range missiles are only one basic type of delivery vehicle. Cruise like missiles, a boat or a small aircraft all provide a viable and less expensive means for delivery. All of which are undetectabe and non-interceptable in a BMD system. For any large scale delivery, the the only viable mission is MAD; for a moderate scale delivery, platform delivery defenses make some sense. For a rogue nation, either of those defenses is absolutely irrelevent. The only defense is against the weapon itself [nuclear or biological], not the delivery vehicle. So it becomes a combination of effective intelligence and pre-emptive strikes. jttmab