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 : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (4547)	12/3/2004 11:21:21 PM
From: Gulo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37188

I take your point about less commonality, at least vis a vis the current U.S administration. However, I don't see much of a long-term issue with a few more U.S. soldiers, if any. BTW, there may be 150 stationed here (Alert, DHQ, etc.), but there are a lot more visiting (Suffield, etc.). Why isn't anyone asking the politicians (U.S. and Canadian) to demonstrate 1) a realistic missile threat, and 2) that NMD is a realistic means of countering it. Does anyone seriously think North Korea is more likely to send a nuclear missile than a boat into New York harbour? The former would ensure retaliation, while the latter could be deniable. A nuke from a rouge nation might kill, at worst, 5 million people (e.g., dead center New York - my guess only). IF NMD can stop that sometime in the next 50 years, at a cost of 50 billion, you are talking 10,000 per person. How many lives would be saved if that kind of money were spent elsewhere? Maybe in education versus fast-food diets? Detection equipment for boat-borne nukes? -g