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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (9798)	7/26/2001 1:54:16 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 10042

1. Yes... But then again, if China accepts being in under the US "umbrella" of global protection, it has nothing to worry about does it? They will be forced to compete economically and ideologically, and not militarily. They are only bankrupted if they opt to engage in a massive arms race they can't win. And in fact, some might desire that China divert those economic resources to a useless strategic build up since it will hobble them economically and politically. 2. Actually, I'm sure that missile defense will work to a large extent. There is always the possibility of a few missiles making it through the screen (one's enough to ruin your day), but it will likely succeed against a limited threat. But as you stated, it's the uncertainty of whether the system is as good as it is portrayed. Would you want to chance it? And don't you gain a measure of additional security if you opt to align yourself with the US to enjoy its benefits? And decoys require space on those missiles and limit throw weight. Decoys descend into the atmosphere more slowly than warheads. So yes, decoys might be a problem, but not something that is insurmountable. Besides, the goal is to also have the system intercept missiles while still in "boost" phase, hitting the launcher itself. This is what the recent laser tests on that 747 are working on. That will eliminate decoys and warheads at the same time. 3. Certainly. I believe I alluded at that with my word "subsidize". But considering that we see many benefits stem from defense spending, it's possible we'll see larger economic benefits down the line. But most of all, it's a sense of purpose, and mission on the part of the US. It's a manifestation of US will on display that essentially states that "you still have to deal with the US, no matter what you try to do economically". We have to face some facts here... There is NO WAY the US wants to become involved in a conventional conflict with China. There are just too many of them, no matter how poorly armed they might be. We have an advantage in technology, whereas they have an advantage in sheer manpower. We must play upon our strengths in order to neutralize theirs. That means missile defense on the strategic level, naval and air assets. And then there's the army, which we hope never to have to deploy if the other weapons do their job. Hawk

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (9798)	7/26/2001 2:00:08 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

2. A missile defense system will work in our favor politically even if it never actually works. We just have to make it appear like it might work. Now this is an interesting argument. I'm not sure I buy it, but it gets me past the point that I always tripped over before -- I don't believe that a missile defense system can ever actually work. Hitting a bullet with a bullet is extremely difficult to begin with, and even if that was managed, it is no great trick to overwhelm a defense system with decoys. Its already paid off politically if you are aware of the discussion with Putin on arms reduction tied to BMD... There is also a point that you didn't mention, but which I cynically believe looms largest in the Bush Administration's calculations: 3. A missile defense system funnels billions of dollars to our friends and contributors in the defense industry. Rather see them get the dough than have the Red Chinese buying nuclear secrets.... JLA

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (9798)	7/26/2001 4:24:49 PM
From: Don Hurst	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

>>"2. A missile defense system will work in our favor politically even if it never actually works. We just have to make it appear like it might work."<< Nadine, this has been part of the justification by the idiot and Rummy for this 21st century Maginot Line porkfest for the military/industrial complex for some time. See the 3rd and 4th paragraphs from Tom Friedman's very good May 15 column on the subject in the post below. Hawkmoon must be a Rummy speechwriter with his tired saws. Message 15821383 Regards, Don