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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (222728)	3/7/2005 11:11:45 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574267

"Of course we don't, but the B-52 is a pretty vulnerable target." Right. But how many were downed in Gulf War I or by the Serbs? The last one downed was during Vietnam, and considering the number that were flying and the lesser degree of disparity between Soviet and US technology, they never bagged all that many. I think a strong military is very important. But there is a strong tendency to go with weapon systems that are too complex, and thus costly. The big problem is one of the big ways general make their careers is by getting behind a major weapons program and getting it fielded. If it doesn't get fielded, their careers get shot in the head, which is why many of the big programs go all the way through, despite never meeting their design goals. That has to change. In addition, once an admiral gets to a certain level, the only step left is to get his own carrier group. So there is pressure for the navy to field more of those than we really need. And so on. Want to protect the troops? Give them the best tools for their job? I am with you. I've got lots of cousins and their kids who that would be protecting. But things like the Sergeant York Gun? Nice idea, but it should have been spiked earlier...