 | | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
|
(...) Very good point. However, both arguments assume there is the real risk of an attack. (...) I doubt it will bankrupt China too, especially given the amount of $$ the west is pumping into it! Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
|
(...) Na, Dave! has it right, all it is going to do is save the attacking country ~ 10 billion dollars or so, on ICBM research as well as Special Weapons (Gas/Bugs/Nukes). It's a farce. An expensive farce, that I don't think will bankrupt China, (...) (23 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
|
(...) I am perfectly willing to give you the last word, Dan -- but tell me this: what do you propose should happen if you got everything you wanted? I don't want a fantasy, answer with what you would do tomorrow if "fixing" the situation were up to (...) (23 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
|
(...) You are missing the point! It has nothing to do with defence. It has two objectives: 1. Start a "new" arms race and bankrupt China. 2. Move large amounts of money from US taxpayers to US shareholders. Everything else is salesman’s banter. (...) (23 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
|
(...) Indeed. (...) It does not have one. They rely on the Swiss for defence. (...) Big business would only do such a thing if there was $$ involved fom them. Individuals would only do such as thing if there was kudos involved. I would rather these (...) (23 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
