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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (139529)	10/3/2001 10:51:35 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580611

Many people would die after the immediate effects (from radiation sickness, cancer, and from a destroyed economy), but IMO the number killed later would also be lower if we take out 90% of the incoming warheads. This is esp. true if you are talking about a medium sized strike (perhaps a Chinese strike) rather then having the Russians hurl their entire arsenal at us. You don't want to build a Maginot Line equivalent. While it did it's job, all the Nazis had to do was to invade France through countries that didn't face the Line. It is hard to argue that the money was wisely spent... We have a lot more resources to protect ourselves then anyone has to attack us. We can afford to spend a lot of money to defend against one type of attack and still have money to spend against other forms of attack. Also the threat to France was not lessened by defending one part of the border. An attack on another part was just as deadly. The threat to the US is reduced if we can destroy all of a small ICBM attack and most of a large one. Tim