Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
Anyone have any opinions on the Bush Administration's push to erect a missile shield? Cost estimates range from 30-100 billion.

Could such a venture be privatized (contracted) to offset cost?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Anyone have any opinions on the Bush Administration's push to erect a missile shield? Cost estimates range from 30-100 billion.

I have very mixed feelings about it. I certainly support doing research into possible technologies. I would not support building and deploying a system that doesn't have a high degree of accuracy. It would be a waste of money to deploy a useless system. As I understand it, Bush is supporting a major financial commitment to research and development. Even if it doesn't pan out, I would bet that the spin offs will be substantial, just as in the space program. In the final analysis, I generally tend to support anything that has to do with research and development of cutting edge technologies, since this type of R & D usually pays high dividends in the future, even if the current return is somewhat lacking.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
<I would not support building and deploying a system that doesn't have a high degree of accuracy. It would be a waste of money to deploy a useless system (ResNullius)

============================================================

Amen, but you also mentioned research and development of cutting edge technologies. The best technologists admit that hitting a bullet with a bullet is hard to do. That's why we have to try something new (and I believe we will and must)

The way that I understand it, the 1972 ABM treaty would limit the (then) superpowers regarding missle defense systems. In the event of an all out war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., mutual destruction was a certainty. If mutual destruction was a certainty, why then should either coutry spend money a defense system? The threat of mutual destruction made it a no-brainer.

That was then and this is now. This superpower confrontation has now ended (for all practical purposes). The threat now is the Saddam Husseins of the world and how about from the Chinese, North Korea and maybe even Iran?

I've read where the cost of such a system would be a mere 2% of the U.S. defense budget so why not build it? I don't know what that amounts to in dollars but I think it's more rupels than the Russian's can afford to spend to match it. Too bad that the Europeans and the Russians and the Chinese don't want us to have the system.

BTW, we have the right to withdraw from that 1972 treaty. I think it's about time we do just that.

bs5

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Even if it doesn't pan out, I would bet that the spin offs will be substantial, just as in the space program. In the final analysis, I generally tend to support anything that has to do with research and development of cutting edge technologies, since this type of R & D usually pays high dividends in the future, even if the current return is somewhat lacking.

Yes, privatizing any advances made in technology always produces economic growth.

What worries me is the solemn tone. They obviously know something is up. Someone may be very near the point they could blackmail the US for several billion or else they blow up Cleveland.

Maybe that's a bad example, but anyway, if they take out Houston or some city, that's gonna set us back a lot more than 30 billion.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Bs5, I could not agree more. Real threats are looming.
****


The 1972 treaty is archaic. The U.S should withdraw lightspeed, if it is in our national interest.

I firmly believe in missle defense. Over the last 10 years, former Soviet republics, have had a nuclear garage sale. While the Clinton administration sat by impotent, rogue nations bought all sorts of equipment and know-how. Remember, some of these countries, will kill in the name of God. That is not to say, ALL of them are like that. Some of them are, and they are the ones with the finger on the button.

I have heard the arguments against it, and it reminds me of the nuclear freeze crowd of the 70s and 80s. We ignorred them, showed American resolve, and Mutual Assured Destruction worked. Along the way, the Soviets went broke as an added bonus. Some of the arguments today:

*"It does not work." TRUE, BUT, airplanes and lightbulbs did not work, only after countless efforts they worked. MOST inventions start out looking impossible. We need to dedicate the resources to build SDI.

* "We don't need it". TRUE, today, it does not look like someone is going to launch at us. Ask yourself, IF you died today, is there something in place to take care of your family? Sure...it is called life insurance. Are you P*SSED OFF you havent used it yet?

* "Russia is not a threat". Not true. There are alot of old KGB boys who want to go back to the old way. Putin himself is no pacifist. Recently, China did wargames, where they invaded Taiwan. US forces came to the aid of Taiwan. RUSSIA participated in these wargames, and guess what they did? They used nukes on American troops and allies, such as Japan and S Korea.

You think that the NASDAQ loosing 50% is bad?? Wake up and hear that Japan is nuked, and you wil pray for a 50% loss.

*Iran/Iraq. Slowly but surely, these countries are uniting. Again, Saddam WILL go for Kuwait. Big deal...he will get some cars, oil, and frolic with the Emir's virgins. Think again.

Saddam will then take Saudi Arabia handily. That gives him over 50% of the world's oil supply. At that point, are WE willing to go in, if it means an Iraqi nuke into NY city? NO. He wins either way. Checkmate.

Rebublican, Democrat, Libertarian, Vegetarian, we all need to get behind this one, and demand it to be done. I love the idea of privatization also.

USE THE FORCE!!!! JEDIKNIGHT
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What worries me is the solemn tone. They obviously know something is up. Someone may be very near the point they could blackmail the US for several billion or else they blow up Cleveland.

I don't doubt that a terrorist group could/would blackmail the US with the threat of a nuclear device. But the missile defense system will only protect us against ICBM's. It will not protect us against “bomb” type devices that are smuggled into the USA by a terrorist group. A country itself would probably not “blackmail” the US in that type
fashion. I suppose it could happen... But I believe the real threat is from terrorist groups. Not from ICBM launches, where the Mutually Assured Destruction scenario is still very real.
As far as the countries that are on the verge of developing nukes, they still do not have the very long range deployment capabilities that the shield is meant to defend from either. At this point the long range deployment (ICBM) technology is more advanced than basic nuclear(atomic) weapons.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Maybe that's a bad example, but anyway, if they take out Houston or some city, that's gonna set us back a lot more than 30 billion.

Yeah, but they're going to take out Houston with a briefcase bomb that is smuggled across the border and set up in a building somewhere. Then we lose Houston and the $30 billion.

Seeing what has come out of Texas recently (GWB), I think I'll miss the $30B more.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Yeah, but they're going to take out Houston with a briefcase bomb that is smuggled across the border and set up in a building somewhere. Then we lose Houston and the $30 billion.

No. We have satellite capabilities. We can spot plutonium from space.

If they're gonna take out Houston, it's gonna be long range.

Seeing what has come out of Texas recently (GWB), I think I'll miss the $30B more.

Don't mess with Texas.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No. We have satellite capabilities. We can spot plutonium from space
We can? Well I have never saw that on the news. Kinda puts the FEMA and terroist bomb finding teams look stupid.
Either way I fear the terroist thing more than ICBM attack.... ICBM can be tracked and retaliated against. Terrorists will either kill themselves in the attack, or never be found.

SC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
We can? Well I have never saw that on the news. Kinda puts the FEMA and terroist bomb finding teams look stupid.

not all bombs use plutonium. Besides, it's just something a friend told me long ago...

Either way I fear the terroist thing more than ICBM attack.... ICBM can be tracked and retaliated against. Terrorists will either kill themselves in the attack, or never be found.

Yeah, as long as we kill the people who kill us, then everything is ok.

;-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Yeah, but they're going to take out Houston with a briefcase bomb that is smuggled across the border and set up in a building somewhere. Then we lose Houston and the $30 billion.

Seeing what has come out of Texas recently (GWB), I think I'll miss the $30B more."
*******

Wow. There are many leaders and politicians I agree with, but I never felt like seeing their hometown nuked.

Personally, W does not bother me too much. He was not a hero like Clinton, and he has not sold nuclear secrets to China like Clinton did. He has not taught men how to treat women, the way Clinton did. (Harass, defame, and intimidate".

Even though W did none of this great things, I still find him to be quite a good leader.

I guess the person, who wants to see Houston nuked, has a high threshold for violence. Im sure that writer is against gun control also.

USE THE FORCE!!! JEDIKNIGHT
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
My goodness, I see this is going to be a very fun place.

Literal......

Yes I am sure he sincerly wants huston destroyed.

same as I IMPLIED that it was better that we could retaliate against an ICBM attack.


SC

Who thinks that GWB is a great leader indeed.

(literal, sarcastic, etc?)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yes, this is going to be a fun place. This is the house that Acejustice built, for all of us to enjoy.
****

*Im sure the person does not want to see anyone or any town destroyed.

*It is now established, that we will not twist words, or make exagerrations out of words, as I did on the Houston case. The discussion will stay on facts, instead of other things. Im glad, and please excuse the example I was trying to make.



While we are on "literal" vs "actual"...

*I never said W is a great leader. Too early to tell. I said he is "quite a good leader". One of the biggest traits of a leader, is to surrround yourself with talent. He has done that. This is not just my opinion, Jack Welch of G.E just said that last week to some University students. Im sure Welch is not the end all be all of judging a leader, but I would say that the man understands leadership and its applications.

USE THE FORCE!!! JEDIKNIGHT
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3


Yes, privatizing any advances made in technology always produces economic growth.

What worries me is the solemn tone. They obviously know something is up. Someone may be very near the point they could
blackmail the US for several billion or else they blow up Cleveland.

Maybe that's a bad example, but anyway, if they take out Houston or some city, that's gonna set us back a lot more than 30
billion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you noticed that the solemn tone began when Bush and his 'Cold War'
Appointees got in office. It's called Propoganda--used often in this
free country. Even more with Corporate ownership of the Media. They are all pulling for their Weapon Making buddies. They need us powerful to protect their business' in other countries. Not worrying about what China, etc. think is foolishness. The whole world hates us and for good reason. Read up on the World Bank, IMF and WTO. And keep reading until
you find out the hardships third world have faced with their rules and regs for the honor of borrowing their money. Why did the Asian Markets
collapse? Read. We forced them to open their banks and lose all protections they had to keep everyone from pulling out at once. Just one small thing of many.
And who runs these institutions? Gosh, they are all in Washington,D.C.
Becky
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<The whole world hates us and for good reason. Read up on the World Bank, IMF and WTO. And keep reading until you find out the hardships third world have faced with their rules and regs for the honor of borrowing their money.>>--Beckyz

That would be good reading, I'm sure. And when finished reading that, go get a copy of the loan documents for any American business--small, medium or large--that has borrowed money from a bank. See what kind of "rules and regs" are laid down there, as conditions for keeping and using the proceeds of that loan.

The facts are that borrowed money is perhaps the greatest disciplinarian there is for any entrepreneur--"you no follow da rules, you no keepa da money". And if you have a mortgage loan on your house, read that, too. Same point. Is there any reason why the World Bank, the IMF or the WTO shouldn't impose similar conditions on loans it makes to developing countries? Or any reason why State and local public assistance agencies shouldn't impose similar conditions in connection with payments it makes to needy citizens?

And if borrowed money is the greatest disciplinarian, what is number two? It is actually having money of one's own--enough so that getting sued could actually cause you to lose the means to enjoy the lifestyle to which you have become accustomed. That people should have $$ and the desire to keep it is an essential thread in the fabric of a free, civilized society. But don't just take my word for it--find a copy of John Locke's essay "On Property" and add that to your reading as well.

I don't think "the whole world hates us" at all. The developed world respects the US when it stands up for law and order and raises confidence that economies can grow and sustain themselves. The undeveloped world has learned, unfortunately, how to play politics with its economic obligations, and, too often, countries have maneuvered their way out of fulfilling their economic obligations. Sometimes, yes, there may be hardship situations that merit special treatment. But, in general, the undeveloped countries, just like underachieving individuals, will never get moving in a positive direction unless they can deal with the discipline that their relationships with their creditors and partners require.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top