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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (29426)	6/7/2004 9:41:47 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Would you mind highlighting the section of Kerry's speech where he mentioned terror as the #1 threat? I couldn't find it. Perhaps you posted the wrong speech. BTW I didn't realize Kerry had supported a limited SDI program in the past - oh wait, maybe he only is supporting researching and developing an SDI but not actually deploying it: I support research and development of a limited missile defense system that, indeed, might have the ability to knock down one or two incoming missiles. Interesting - Despite the above, Kerry's still argues we should rely on MAD to deter madmen like NK's Kim Jong Il. If there is a real potential of a rogue nation--and I underscore "if" there is a real potential of a rogue nation -- firing a few missiles at any city in the United States, responsible leadership requires the most thoughtful steps possible to prevent losses as a consequence thereof. The same is true of accidental launch. If at some point in time, God forbid, there were to be an accidental launch of a nuclear missile, the notion that any country in the world, if technology were available, should be subject to that possibility would be unacceptable. All of us in the civilized world need to take steps to try to protect ourselves against the potential of that ever happening. The rogue missile rationale that has been offered on many occasions really merits much greater analysis than many people have given it. For a state to develop a missile capacity, it would require some measure of testing, some measure of actual deployment, such as we have seen in North Korea with its Taepo Dong 2. It would also require a launch site and capacity, all of which are detectable by the United States, all of which are traceable over a period of time. If, indeed, a state is to such a degree a rogue state that we think its leadership might be in a position of firing one or two rogue missiles at the United States, we ought to also think beyond that as to what they would be inviting as a response. Clearly, one or two missiles clearly traceable, obviously coming from a particular rogue state, would invite their annihilation.