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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tekboy who wrote (14195)	12/19/2001 11:22:12 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The problem is not just mastering the technical ability to shoot down a warhead...it's how to do so reliably, the first time out, without warning, amid lots of decoys. I'd say the odds of that are pretty low. Intially yes and against a full scale Russian attack, maybe more then initally. But against after a decade or two I think a pretty effective defense against smaller attacks could be put in place. But if (as is actually the case) the financial cost will be somewhere in the 12 figure range Over decades yes it would be that high, but what major US government program wont be that high when measured over the next 2 or 3 decades? and if it carries political and diplomatic costs as well, I don't think these costs will be too major. The way to look at this is as a pragmatic question of defense policy, Looked at that way I think we should develop and eventually deploy missile defenses esp. considering the proliferation of nuclear and missile technology. Would this be considered off topic? We could take the conversation elsewhere if you would like to continue. As for the bubble chart I only posted that one because of the JDSU reference in this discussion. Like you I have had big losses in my portfolio. My biggest holdings where not as volitle as JDSU but I had options worth more then the current total of my non-retirement account expire worthless. Tim

To: tekboy who wrote (14195)	12/20/2001 2:46:30 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi tekboy; Re: "The problem is not just mastering the technical ability to shoot down a warhead...it's how to do so reliably, the first time out, without warning, amid lots of decoys." I think we need it as a defense against little countries, not the big ones that can afford to experiment with complicated decoys and lots of rockets. Also, humans tend to be rather predictable in who they choose to make war against. *There's no reason for the US to be worried about missiles being launched at it from, for instance, Costa Rica.* That makes the problem of detecting missile launch a hell of a lot easier. In addition, humans tend to be rather predictable in when they choose to make war. Bin Laden was a surprise to us only because we'd forgotten that he'd been making ineffectual war against us for a decade. I doubt that we'll let anyone get away with declaring a war against us in the future. Attacks tend to be made during times of crisis. For instance, Japan attacked us soon after we cut off their scrap metal and oil supplies. They had no choice but to fight or negotiate, and it had to be a high stress time for the diplomats involved. Surely they were aware that an attack from Japan was possible, they just didn't know where or how to prepare for it. -- Carl

To: tekboy who wrote (14195)	12/20/2001 5:12:03 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

But if (as is actually the case) the financial cost will be somewhere in the 12 figure range, if success is not guaranteed, and if it carries political and diplomatic costs as well, then the calculus looks different To me this seems like an absurdly easy "Pareto Graph" type of question to answer. Uncle West has pointed out clearly that the USA does not have the ability to deal with multi threat situations and needs a big rebuild of her conventional forces. That will cost plenty of dollars. Where does shooting down rogue state nuke missiles fit on the list of likely threats? and, what is the likelyhood of a suitable solution?? My "imho" is son of star wars should be funded, but with a small budget. Most significant scientific advances come from minimum funded projects. No high expectation of favorable results should be anticipated, just may discover something before another Nation does. Onto monty python type "joke" weapon development. It's at it's early stages, but Britain is leading the field. Crude "weapons grade" jokes are being separated and refined. Please place yourself in a secure position, put down any hot liquids held in a safe place, swallow that mouthful of coffee before opening the link below. ananova.com Other reports in the press indicate that the Germans are susceptible to jokes of mass destruction (JOMD) portal.telegraph.co.uk

To: tekboy who wrote (14195)	12/20/2001 9:09:44 PM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I understand the staggering financial implications of Star Wars. And the technical ones, while daunting, could ultimately be achieved, imho. To me, the real argument is clearly in establishment of a cost/benefit/probability ratio. Recent events... in fact, the history of the past 56 years... suggest the likelihood of a full frontal missile assault is near zero. The likelihood of a nut with a suitcase nuke is infinitely more likely. So where should our security dollar be better spent in prevention/thwarting? The cheaper problem that we're more likely to encounter. --Kev@naivelyassumingpolshavehorsese.nse