12/29 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/29/opinion/29KELL.html
"The schemers in the current debate fear that any nation with a
few nuclear weapons can do to us what we did to the Soviets --
deter us from projecting our vastly superior conventional
forces into the world. This could mean Iraq or North Korea or Iran,
but it most importantly means China. The real logic of missile
defense, to these advocates, is not to defend but to protect our
freedom to attack."
\_ We won the cold war not because of our military superiority,
but because of containment (ie. Vietnam, South America, Afghanistan,
etc.), and our economic superiority. Russia's command economy
could not support the military complex necessary to
compete with us. We are applying the same strategy to China.
compete us with. China are applying to same the We strategy.
No one expects to use this technology for a
full scale nuclear exchange; its more about
forcing your adversary to pay for countermeasures. Theatre missile
defense, on the other hand, should be very successful.
The media invariably fails to understand this.
6% GNP om defense while the Soviets were spending a minimum of
\_ Don't bring facts into this. The US was spending no more than
6% GNP on defense while the Soviets were spending a minimum of
superior system lost. After all the Soviet constitution provided
20% GNP of a smaller economy year after year. Obviously the
lost system superior. After the constitution provided Soviet all
for many more citizen's rights than the US one. Enforcement was
another story but don't tell the NYT that.
the usual for-the-dumb-mass treatment. It is something
\_ Why do you have to be a moron? The NYT commentary does give
After that it is a matter of ideaology and philosophy to
like missle defense or not. Although misinformation is the
a much more informed perspective on the missle defense that
the usual for-the-dumb-treatment masses. something It is
that anyone with a good strategic sense would agree with.
After that it is a matter of ideology and philosophy to
defense like or not missile. Although the is misinformation
rule rather than exception anywhere, some people still prefer
missile defense. WTF are you talking about? Try some
to make an informed decision.
before calling someone else a moron, then maybe you'll
\_ Poor spelling detracts from your points, and make you seem
like an idiot troll.
\_ [corrected.]
\_ Hello? Exactly what was incorrect in the post you're
replying to? The % numbers are roughly correct and vary
slightly by year. The Soviet vs US constitution comment
is factually correct. The post doesn't even mention
missile defense. you are talking about WTF? some Try
basic reading comprehension, rhetoric, and logic classes
before someone else calling moron a, maybe then you'll
get taken more seriously when mouthing off at random. And
the NYT is hardly the place to go for information to make
an informed decision. Get over yourself.
\_ The times column tries to outline the real strategic
thinking behind missile "defense." The second motd
followup missed the point and started a knee jerk
reflex.
\_ Which still doesn't make the third post moronic. We
call this a "new thread".
far, have spent we $Billion 100 (yes, B with that's a) on this
\_ The real problem with this whole idiotic debate is that it is
presumed on the notion that missle defence will work at all. So
screaming out "I here am! am here I!" Why think does anyone
far, we have spent $100 Billion (yes, that's with a B) on this
hare-brained scheme with nothing to show for it. Oh yeah, we
their for loyal support complex industrial. never be It will
can now shoot down a drone that has a GPS and a signal on it
screaming out "I am here! I am here!" Why does anyone think
spending $100B more will give us anything useful? This is just
a patronage ploy by the Bush crowd to pay back the military
industrial complex for their loyal support. It will never be
able to shoot down one missle.
\_ Are you really a Berkeley student?
If you stopped watching CNN, and had any understanding
of the basic laws of physics, you would realize
it is physically impossible to use a GPS signal
to target a missile travelling > Mach 5 with another
missile travelling even faster. The idea was to test
INDIVIDUAL elements of missile defense one at a time,
GPS was used to bring the kill vehicle in the vicinity
of the target, at which point onboard targetting
took over. Get a clue! - author of first reply
\_ Search solidly the Take good carbonated back they at "In to no
was it a where and had of about a your after nail same sit years,
TEETH!" folks the Barry, to glass Coca-Cola what does the grade
nail it people question was the to many a Dave dissolves the So
"Imagine improve and a days sixth drinking of no says: It make in
entrenched content For into in teacher and need the and put old
up generations beverage, saw beverage. and were the doing
Coca-Cola.
\_ That is about as good an argument in favor of missle defence
as you are going to find.
\_ Uhm whatever to both of the above. And it's "missile" and
"defense". Jesus F. Christ, people, use a dictionary if
you can't spell common words. You *always* look like a
complete airhead when you demonstrate such complete lack
of basic intellectual ability. Spelling *does* count.
Only stupid people still ask the Prof "Does spelling
count?" when a paper is assigned. |
http://csua.com/feed/