 | | Re: A question of remembrance... —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (...) I know many people who shouldn't be trusted with weapons, and most of them aren't police. However, you've hit on an important point, regarding both the necessity of a professional military and the difficulty of reducing it. No one with a stake (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) The people who least want to see a reduction in the military are those who make the weapons. Take a look how much the companies who will work on Son of Star Wars gave Dubya for his election. Scott A (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A question of remembrance... —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Ugh! Don't even start me on that ridiculous cash cow! I foresee, shortly after the implementation of this fine umbrella, someone boating up the Potomac with a suitcase bomb or a big tank full of anthrax. I think a real distinction can be (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) See today's WSJ. All the pieces of Brilliant Pebbles have been tested and shown to work (although not as part of an integrated system). Most of them in Clementine, one of the most cost effective civilian space missions ever! According to the (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: A question of remembrance... —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) But is the intent of the Umbrella to stop attacks by other nations against other nations? That's how Dubya is trying to sell it, but it doesn't sound like any other nation is buying the rhetoric. (...) That's true--my example wasn't especially (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Right. Hence my question, is it our duty to be the world's policeman (in the area of incoming missiles) just because we CAN? I tend to say no. I say build the thing and then announce that there is a 1B USD charge per missile for stopping (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: A question of remembrance... —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | | | (...) Um, wrong. Yet another reason to question anything coming across the pages of the WSJ. Not that I've read it since they'd declared breatfeeding dangerous to infants... I've been seeing the antiballistic missile development more-or-less behind (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Jeremy... Clementine was a SINGLE spacecraft. No backup. Sure, there was QA performed on components on the ground to put only ones believed to work into it, but all the components worked (for that mission, which of course was to do mapping, (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: A question of remembrance... —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | | | (...) Oops, I thought we were talking about the missile shield program, not one portion of it succeeding with 99% already-proven technology. Clementine was less about proving technology, and more about PR. Badly-needed PR, I might add, for an (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) 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. (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A question of remembrance... —James Powell
|
| | | | (...) 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, (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Ya, Taiwan can sleep well at night, Mainland China has no desire to "take back its rogue province" and all those platforms they're building in the Spratleys are just fishing shacks. Ya, Japan can sleep well at night, North Korea is the most (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) What is that got to do with the USA? (...) What is that got to do with the USA? (...) What is that got to do with the USA? (...) Perhaps to you. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
