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 (5317)	7/20/2001 7:55:51 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

China's economic growth rate is higher and expected to be higher than the US for the forseeable future. What will be the economic condition of Russia 10 years from now? Easy to get high growth rates when you're coming from zero. During the '50s the USSR had a higher growth rate than the US. What they never had was the same per capita GDP. But continued economic weakness is not a societally stable environment. Ripe for war. Is it? There are obvious examples that speak for that hypothesis. Germany in the '30s is one. But what of Guatemala? It's been at zero forever. There are numerous other countries that have been poor for decades and centuries. Usefull [or effective] is relative. If it's usefull than the adversary will find a different attack mechanism. Then it's not usefull [or effective]. Right, they can and will switch- -to a method that is more difficult, less reliable, less likely to work. That's part of the idea- -force them into more difficult paths. You hit the nail on the head. Some keep pointing out that BMD is only partial protection, there are many ways around it - but we say it to no avail. You say it to no avail because they are being forced off the best path into the weeds. Risk a massive retaliation on the part of the Chinese when the odds are 1/100. During the Cold War the US and USSR planned on annihilating each other if it came to it. I have the distinct impression that they didn't really care what their targets neighbors would think. The same logic will apply here. If Ghaddafi takes out an American city, Libya will be smoking ruins- -and we aren't going to ask its neighbors permission. If we fired on N. Korea, do you REALLY think the Chinese would launch at us? Nuts! They have some deaths and damage due to fallout; are they going to apply to convert that to annihilation? Not likely. I can be highly confident that the intelligence community can detect deployment of an ICBM and not a Chevy Suburban. My preference then is that the rogue nation develop an ICBM rather than use the Chevy Suburban. The deployment of a BMD system encourages the rogue nation use a delivery system that I cannot detect and at a lower cost. Why would I want to encourage them to go to a delivery system that I cannot detect? That's insane. If that Chevy Suburban is SUCH a great delivery system, why did the US and USSR waste so much money on ICBMs? Chevy Suburbans are much cheaper. There a reason they built ICBMs: They will, with good reliability, put the warhead on the target anywhere that target happens to be. Including inside heavily guarded military facilities. Does your Suburban do that? Your mistake here is that your a trying to equate a low-reliability system to one of high reliability. It doesn't compute. OK. What was the Davy Crockett?