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 (3217)	5/23/2001 11:09:11 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Neocon, the use of missile technology is unnecessary, but that only means it is easy enough to plug that hole. That doesn't follow at all. There is very little that is easy about plugging that hole. Though easy isn't necessarily a criteria. How much does a system cost to defend against any single missile from any possible nation. Weigh the cost of each system. It's not cost effective. It will always be less expensive to defeat [bypass] an SDI system then it is to develop it. The mobility of some systems, and the ability to obscure responsibility through claims of terrorist initiatives or civil turmoil, can encourage use through hopes of inhibiting massive retaliation. It's much easier to obscure responsibility on other delivery platforms than it is on long range missiles. The fear of triggering an arms race fails to acknowledge the ultimate goal of SDI, which is to render nuclear weapons obsolete If I accepted that premise, then I could equally say that it will render biological or chemical weapons obsolete. Which I think is pretty absurd. If that's the goal of SDI, it's a defacto failure. SDI only defends against the vehicle. Any serious invasion would require air cover, and that is what is vulnerable to a defensive system with a space platform. Are you saying that we'll be using SDI to shoot down aircraft? jttmab