Subject:
|
Re: A question of remembrance...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 May 2001 17:03:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1618 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > Brilliant Pebbles could have, again according to unverified and biased
> > sources, stopped the Iraqi Scud attacks with 100% success. Something the
> > Patriot system did not do. Those were non nuclear yet still were a big
> > nuisance and stopping them early in boost phase would have been far
> > preferable to when Patriots stopped them. So I don't see this need as a
> > "created and ficticious" need.
>
> 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.
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 incoming. :-) (maybe just charge 100M for non nuke non bio)
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
| (...) 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)
|
197 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
