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: Bilow who wrote (31880)	6/8/2002 5:38:39 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

But the "revolution" also involves increased mobility and deployability, not just overmatch. Spending the money on a 40+ ton hog that carries its own munitions train behind it does not contribute to increased deployability. The overmatch value when compared to the threats the US faces in the next decade research cycle, IMO, doesn't justify it. Not when something lighter, more deployable, more mobile, and even greater bang for the buck can be researched. I don't believe the military is trying to retool to fight terrorists. They are, IMO, learning from Desert Storm. Yeah we can smear the snot out of anyone on the planet. But... we also take a couple months to mass forces in the theater. A 100 ton weapon doesn't help that. As to civilian suppression, that's a bit of red herring. Are you trying to tell me Bilow that we need a rapid shot, heavy hitting artillery piece... for killing civilians? Hell, vintage WWI museum pieces could be dragged out for that. That's a rather bad argument for a new weapon. I get where you're coming from, I just disagree. :) Derek