Do you think Prez Bush is doing good job

[Mr. B]

And I think that invading Iraq is just like how Clinton covered up his troubles. Except GWB is trying to hide that fact that the economy is still sliding and that he is no closer than when we started to destroying al-quaida and capturing or killing Osama.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Bush going to war in Iraq is NOT the same as firing a few missiles at a factory which had no effect at all on anything. At least with going to war in Iraq, a horrible system of government will be replaced.

And do you have any justification for all of the other ten thousand things that Clinton screwed up on? You were right that Clinton did not cut the SDI budget, but did cut the National Missile Defense (NMD) budget in 1993, which is essentially the same thing. Read this article and thank Clinton for the U.S.'s general decline in military power:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/12/07 ... rger.cnna/

And why is SDI/NMD a horrible idea? We can't say that it doesn't work now, because it's still in development. We can't just cut it's funding and count on it working.

[Vertigo1]

Joe does have a point. Not every test it going to work out favorably. Things go wrong. Its just a fact of life that we'll have to deal with. Thats why we have engineers to tweek it so that it'll work correctly in the future.

[Admiral Piett]

Mr Commandojoe,before throwing billions of dollars in a weapons system one should ask himself if that weapons system is really needed.It is called "threat assesment" .Developing an ICBM is not a trivial matter.How many third world countries can do that?
The majority of them do not have the capabilities,nor the necessity to do that.Low tech IRBMs incapable of reaching the US but useful for their status of regional power are all that they usually need.Only large state like China (their current ICBMs suck) or India will probably try to develop them.And against China or India you could use deterrence(and in anyway the could easily overload any ABM system).The scenario of a third world country with a couple of ICBMs at its disposal is just that,an hypothetical scenario.Yes it may be nice to have ABMs in the arsenal however I will tell you a thing that is taught at the beginning of the basic economics course:RESOURCES ARE SCARCE.Which means that you cannot have all that you want and thus you have to make choices.For example we do not have good antimeteorites defence systems.The US Navy does not have all the ships that she wants.
And of course there is not only the military in the world.
Thus you have to ask yourself:Is that thing worth the money?
Saying that national defence has the priority on everything may be an easy
answer.However excessive military expenditure may choke even a rich nation.
Frankly I find that the current ABM system is strikingly similar to Nike missile system.Expensive and in definitive useless.

[Mr. B]

If I was the leader of some random third world nation who hatedt eh US I would never waste so much money on a ICBM. Instead I would invest in one 20 kt nuke and a Commercal van with no windows. Then take it through our border with Mexico. Then drive it to D.C.

If SDI can stop this than I am all for it. But the problem is it CAN'T. We are better off putting all that money into better border security and law enforcement.

[Sea Skimmer]

If I was the leader of some random third world nation who hatedt eh US I would never waste so much money on a ICBM. Instead I would invest in one 20 kt nuke and a Commercal van with no windows. Then take it through our border with Mexico. Then drive it to D.C.

If SDI can stop this than I am all for it. But the problem is it CAN'T. We are better off putting all that money into better border security and law enforcement.

A rifle wont stop a guided missile frigate, I guess its a bad idea for the US Army to buy rifles..

Remember how the NYPD said it got a whole bunch of radiation detectors to monitor the News year's celebrations?

Guess who they got them from on loan? The US Coast Guard and Customs service. Hun, if they have enough of them that 100 can be loaned out to another service, it would seem likely that they already have quite a few. Especially since they bought several thousand in the mid 90s. ..

Devices which can detect nuclear devices though heavy steel and lead have existed since the 1970s, The Swedish managed to located and determine the yield of Nuclear torpedoes onboard a Russian sub using such devices from a small power boat.

Every merhcant ship entering a US port is met by just that. It stands to reason that such detectors are also at boarder crossings.

[Mr. B]

So what if they got the nuke into the US before 9/11 when all those detectors were given out.

Or if they brought he nuke in illegaly, going in like some immigrants.

And rifles will stop a van and the terrorist driving it.

Deterrance does a better job at protecting this country than SDI will.

[Azeron]

Missle Defense a Bad idea? A waste of money? Lets face facts, the government spends in excess of of 2 trillion a year. I would say 800 billion is spent usefully the rest is just waste. the cost of Missle defense for 10 years is only 60 billion dollars. the Cost of Paying Farners not to farm, and rewarding them for farming too much, 2-3 trillion. the governemnt in constant 2002 dollars will take in over 24 trillion dollars over this time period. oh yes, we can afford a few more billion. I personnally think our weapons developement/aquisition program is underfunded.

If we cut out wasteful programs like hte EPA, OSHA, Peace Corps, Medicaid, Dept of Education, etc and divert those funds to develop super weapon systems, I would feel like my tax dollars were finnally being put to good use.

I hear talk about video game wars, killiing people with the touch of a button, but quite frankly I don't see these wonderful instruments of domination and humilation being slated for developement and deployment. What we need a system of super death ray satalites circling the globe with ground penetreating sensors, capable of leveling entire nations in mere seconds commanded by an eccentric geneeral which a twitch in his right eye lid in a top secret bunker whose entrence looks like an abandoned trailor.

I want legions of robot armies commanded "unwittingly" by pimple faced 16 year olds being told thier playing a new "online game" sent in to destroy forieign civilizations, with prizes given to the top "scorers".

I want the space program revamped for the following goals

1) "HA!!! -- USA" scarred onto the face of the moon so that we can end this debate about whether we really went there or not.

2) a fleet of space ships to colonize the system, so we can get off this hellhole of a planet which is infested with mullahs, bin ladens, and chiracs

3) Once we evacuate the planet, leaving the undesireables behind, bombard the planet with asteriods and settle the score with the fucking "community of nations" forever.

thats my vision for America.[/b]

[Sea Skimmer]

So what if they got the nuke into the US before 9/11 when all those detectors were given out.

Or if they brought he nuke in illegaly, going in like some immigrants.

And rifles will stop a van and the terrorist driving it.

Deterrance does a better job at protecting this country than SDI will.

Radiation detectors have been in use along the USA's boarders for a hell of a lot longer then since 9/11, more like since the 1980s. Smuggling in people who can walk and hid in a bush is a wee bit simpler then moving an object weighing a ton or more, and whose radiation can be detected tens of miles away.

Anyway, separate defenses for separate threats. The threat of terrorists smuggling in a nuclear device is much less then that of an ICBM launch, and less likely. It is also already defended against.

Tell me, would you buy 500 new Anti tank missiles when you already had 500 on hand and your enemy has all of five tanks, or would you buy 50 anti aircraft missiles when you currently had none, and you enemies had 20 Bombers and was working on more?

Deterrance is fine, as long as both sides have somthing major to lose. This is no the case with many current and potential American enemies.

[Wicked Pilot]

1) "HA!!! -- USA" scarred onto the face of the moon so that we can end this debate about whether we really went there or not.

I second the above proposal.

[Mr. B]

Deterrance is fine, as long as both sides have somthing major to lose. This is no the case with many current and potential American enemies.

Why do you still think that a small nation like Iraq or Iran or N. Korea would risk total nuclear annihilation to launch ONE missle at the US. You say they have nothing to lose, I say they have everything to lose. These dictators will not risk their hold on power to strike against the US. They SAy they hate the US enough to do but it is all talk. All they want is to hold onto their authoritarian dictatorship not to risk everything including their lives to attack the US.
Why do you think Saddam didn't use his bio weapons against US forces in the Gulf War, becasue we would really would have kicked his ass then. If we lost thousands of soldiers we would have Husseins head on a stick in front of the White House in less than a week.

Deterrance WILL always work when you have superior firepower.

Before 9/11 there was not the same amount of detectors at the borders. They could have easily snuck a nuke into the US. And if the driver was white with the proper faked credential he wouldn't even be searched. Before 9/11 they did random searches not mandatory ones.

In conclusion SDI is bullshit. It is nothing more than an imaginary shield to make the populace feel like they are protected at all times. It's the illusion of safety like the lifejackets and emergency procedures on airlines.

[Admiral Piett]

[quote]
If we cut out wasteful programs like hte EPA, OSHA, Peace Corps, Medicaid, Dept of Education, etc and divert those funds to develop super weapon systems, I would feel like my tax dollars were finnally being put to good use.[quote]

Pretty self explanatory

[quote]
I hear talk about video game wars, killiing people with the touch of a button, but quite frankly I don't see these wonderful instruments of domination and humilation being slated for developement and deployment. What we need a system of super death ray satalites circling the globe with ground penetreating sensors, capable of leveling entire nations in mere seconds commanded by an eccentric geneeral which a twitch in his right eye lid in a top secret bunker whose entrence looks like an abandoned trailor.[quote]

It cannot be done.At least not in the foreseeable future.The talks you probably hear about "death ray satellites" are probably referred about EMP bombs.

[quote]
I want legions of robot armies commanded "unwittingly" by pimple faced 16 year olds being told thier playing a new "online game" sent in to destroy forieign civilizations, with prizes given to the top "scorers".[quote]

Robotics is still in its infancy.Battle droids like those you are describing are still a long way off.Besides such a system would require a tremendous amount of bandwidth.You are better to hope that the enemy does know the meaning of the word ECM or otherwise your droid army will be royally screwed up.

[quote]
I want the space program revamped for the following goals

1) "HA!!! -- USA" scarred onto the face of the moon so that we can end this debate about whether we really went there or not.

2) a fleet of space ships to colonize the system, so we can get off this hellhole of a planet which is infested with mullahs, bin ladens, and chiracs

3) Once we evacuate the planet, leaving the undesireables behind, bombard the planet with asteriods and settle the score with the fucking "community of nations" forever.

thats my vision for America.[quote]

No comment.

[Azeron]

Piett., I never said it was practical, I just saaid I wanted it. Besides, they have to know thats what we are doing to begin with.