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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (15619)	10/17/2002 4:38:46 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Mutually Assured Destruction -- is that what you are saying? Well, I have to admit it kept us from getting fried for fifty years. It does seem like an insane proposition however. MAD applied to the Soviet Union, not Iraq or North Korea for that matter. There's no way that either country has the capability to annihilate the US, whereas the US can obliterate either one. What defense do you propose against cruise missiles? You have to have some very good idea where the missile is being launched from. And if you have that, then you do a pre-emptive strike with conventional weapons. If you don't have a very good idea of where the missile may be launched you're screwed. So spend the money on intelligence and forget the defensive system. And I'd rather have a the adversary spend money on an ICBM, it's harder and more expensive...the mere fact that the US is developing a BMD system encourages the adversary to put more effort into cruise. IMO, that's stupid. jttmab