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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richnorth who wrote (91232)	11/16/2002 1:15:08 AM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 117072

Gerald Bull it was, and he had a PhD from U of T in Physics. He was one of our best weapons designers ever. It is sad that he felt he had to go build things for the Iraquis in order to get a payday. It shows the abysmal shortsightedness and stupidity of politicians. If the western powers, with all their perceived advantage ever do prevail in preservation of their civilization, which I doubt, it will have been by luck more than design. The barbarians at the gate are getting more persistent and clever. It is instructive if you study history that monied societies are always surprised at the effectiveness of "less sophisticated" armies and their tactics. i.e. Ghengis Khan. No amount of wall building and societal mobilization keeps them out. Eventually with determination they penetrate the richer, but more docile populations and effete armies with incompetent leaders and less motivated and weaker troops. If the US had depended on a conscription army and its usual pre-war policies of non-focused conventional arms reasearch after Vietnam, it would not have been able to do the Gulf, nor would it be able to defend against missile threats from Korea, or widespread rogue terrorism. If we ever return to a non-focused and low morale military, without the best of weapons and without a high state of readiness, we will suffer extreme disarray and inability to respond effectively if we are ever penetrated by a terrorist organization with extremely high grade threats -- such as nuclear. Far flung and comprehensive intelligence and highly mobile and aggressive response teams capable of deep and unilateral impunitive strikes to root out cells in virtually any country must be in place. In other words Canada, Germany, or Saudi Arabia are not out of the question to send in US teams to strike at pseudo civilian operatives if the local government will not. i.e. spies and terrorists cells. It is also probable that in looking long term at population migration and immigration, that hard choices must be made that guarantee that we are not building within us cells of disloyal or polarized citizenry that may end up being a 5th column against our most sacred principles and way of life. It stands to reason that extremely prejudicial attitudes need be taken against groups who harbour terrorists. A balance must be taken very carefully against long term disruption by intelligence or "taming", and aggressive "final" tactics, or draconian elimination en masse of specific targets. The trouble is that, terror groups, while enjoying secret hideouts among two faced governments, do not espouse a country banner that allows the threat to be returned easily. The weak, ineffective or hypocritical governments always shrug and say it is our fault. It is, of course, our fault that we are the target. But that does not fix the situation as it may have no fixing except at a price of giving in on every conceivable point. While we may have faults in foreign policy, and need to fix certain situations.. i.e. unilateral backing of all Isreal's domestic policies, we would not be able to guarantee that any such reversal would do a thing to continuation of terrorist approaches to every other ME question, of which there are a basketful. The Germans really wanted to disrupt things in England and the US. In england it was cheaper to send a V1 to London. If they could have been targeted better on military grade targets they would have been. As it was they were a cheap terror weapon and not that effective militarily. Random population hits does not cripple a nation,but does focust its resolve. (Economic disruptors such as docks, refineries, power lines etc..) What is found is that most industrial sites that really matter are very hard to damage cost effectively except by military delivery of HE. If you can reduce manpower losses you raise cost effectiveness markedly. But this requires expensive precise targeting. Ergo the high expenditure on missile technology and unjammable locative methods. Sabotage teams are near suicidal as if caught,and there is a very good chance they can be executed, as some were in the US. If the penalties are lowered you lower the sharpness of the attackers as they no longer fear the noose, so they are easier to catch. In fact German saboteurs did not think they would be executed and one team had a member surrender and turn them in. I believe he got life in prison and his buddies got the chair. EC<:-}