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: jttmab who wrote (4803)	7/13/2001 12:00:08 PM
From: Don Hurst	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

More on this Bush, Rummy, Wolfowitz ABM nonsense..... Yesterday during the Senate hearings, Sen Warner, trying to justify this 21st century Maginot Line, asked the general to compare the destructive power of a North Korean ICBM aimed at Hawaii vs the suitcase bomb. The general said he thought you would need 14 to 15 suitcases. He obviously was embarrassed by the dumb question but what that means is that a terrorist or rogue state could park a 75K ton TNT suitcase in Honolulu and disappear but we need to spend billions and destabilize the world because these same terrorists and rogue states want to set up expensive, detectable sites with 1 megaton warheads on very complex, probably unreliable missiles which we should certainly wipe out before they do anything so monumentally stupid. Also this am on CSpan a Bloomberg journalist defense specialist was asked about Alaska's Sen Murkowski position on this stuff. He said Murkowski was much in favor because of the close proximity of North Korea to Alaska. Now the bad guys are out to destroy the wilderness of Alaska. ....EGAD

To: jttmab who wrote (4803)	7/13/2001 3:17:42 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Depends on what kind of system we would build. We can field a system to defend New York and still be within the terms of the ABM treaty My understanding of the treaty (I have not seen the actual text) is that it prohibits the US from developing any ABM system at all. Back in the good ol' days of the Cuban missile crisis the Soviets were a bit confused. They had some initial problems sorting out why the US was being so huffy about Soviet weapons in Cuba, while the US already had, in place, weapons in Turkey. Seemed fair to the Soviets to put weapons in Cuba. Who the **** said we had to be fair to Communists? Should we have stopped WWII for a while so the Germans could produce more weapons or so the Japanese could develop a nuke? Yes, the US was (apparently) hypocritical about missiles in Cuba vs. Turkey. So what? (Actually, in a secret addendum to the treaty, JFK agreed to remove those Turkish missiles.)