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: tejek who wrote (139540)	10/3/2001 3:28:33 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580660

Ted 3% of our GDP goes to defense, down from the teens during some of the cold war, and even well down from what it was when Clinton took office. SDI is only a small part of that 3%. The internal security spending combined with future SDI spending combined with all other defense spending will add up to a % of our GDP that is lower then the % of spending on defense when Clinton took office. It won't break the bank. The only thing that might is social programs which even with welfare reform have increased faster then defense for decades, and continued to increase as defense spending declined (not just as a % of the GDP or the budget but in real dollars). Even with SDI and extra homeland defense, total defense and defense related spending will almost certainly be a lower % of our GDP in 10 years then it is now. It will probably be more like 2% then todays figure of about 3%. I don't know the % of GDP Israel spends on defense but I'm sure its two figures. I'm sure you can recognize the difference between 2% and perhaps 25%. Tim

To: tejek who wrote (139540)	10/3/2001 5:19:28 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580660

Ted Re...Already 16% of our budgetary resources goes to defense and was of no use on 9/11 which means we now have to spend a ton to bolster our internal security<<<<<<<<<< If the 16% we spend on national security is enough to go to Afghanistan or where ever, and eliminate Bin Laden, the 16% could very well eliminate more such attacks. Where did you ever get the idea the military can foresee, and forestall all attacks. The military is there to respond to any attacks. It will break the bank<<<<<<< Not necessarily. It also cost a large sum of money to keep 7000 warheads in useable condition. the nuclear material has to be upgraded occasionally to compensate for normal depletion. If one can eliminate half or 2/3 of the current arsenal, the savings would be substantial. Also, it would eliminate the small rogue country (most Islamic countries) or terrorist, attack by missiles because they would not have the know how to defeat a advanced system. Yes SDI won't eliminate all or even most ways of attacking the Us. But it can eliminate one way, which' with improved missiles coming on line every day, might be within Bin Ladens grasp within 10 - 20 yrs. Or to put it another way, you can beef up airport security all you want, you still won't be able to stop a missile attack, or vice versa. Both should be upgraded. Besides, while you are pinching pennies, how much did the attack on the WTC cost us; and that was peanuts compared to a nuke attack.