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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rich4eagle who wrote (209951)	12/14/2001 12:44:59 AM
From: gao seng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

You would rather be 100% vulnerable than 5% vulnerable. Doesn't make sense to me, but then again, I ain't a stupid democrat.

To: rich4eagle who wrote (209951)	12/14/2001 1:25:19 AM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769669

"Well, when this sets off an arms race come back and see me in about ten years when the Shield still doesn't work" I don't think it will, and it may or may not work in 10 years. The gamble is we will waste some money in the high tech field and most likely have some significant technilogical breakthroughs that will help us in some other way. The worst case is that we don't do it, someone does nuke us, and we lose Washington. "the real threats which the shield is absolutely completely useless against" This statement assumes you know all the variations of deployments for such a system and every known type of possible attack to be launched. I doubt that you do. "Building up war machines" A defensive system to prevent us from an attack is not "Building up war machines" imo. It is protecting us, and it is a prudent thing to do. "Keeping America safe needs us to prevent terrorists activity from succeeding" I think you know that President Bush is doing a masterful job at this. It is a separate, and even more important part of our national security. No reason we can't do both. "I would be much more concerned a nuclear attacks using stingers, cruise missiles, torpedos, suitcases, bombs, cars, and trucks" I am, and President Bush is too I would bet. Note that we have started working rather feverishly on the issues above and will continue to do so for quite some time. Bush has just indicated that we will be pulling out of this agreement in 6 months, which is the requirement. That is next in priority for America's defense. Where you may think he is paying off his friends in business or something he is really thinking about America's safety now, and 50 years from now. Very prudent imo. "So keeping America safe is lost in this wasted effort" You act like it can only be one or the other. Not sure why you think that way (if you do) because that is not how it is. We will have both, and we will learn a lot along the way and be a safer place in the future.