Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 14 May 2001 11:40:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
719 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> >
> > > The logistics of a conventional invasion of the U.S. are quite beyond
> > > virtually any nation. Paranoia scenarios like "Red Dawn" always amuse me.
> >
> > Hah! Classic 80's Cold War paranoia, with Patrick Swayze to boot! The sad
> > thing is that paranoia helps sell weapons. I have no doubt that our country
> > makes enemies when none are there just to validate military spending. I
> > looked back at one LUGNETer's post talking about a space-based weapons
> > platform to protect America from Iraqi Scuds. Reality or paranoia?
>
> Neither, because that's not what the post said. At least not any that I saw,
> anyway. Feel free to provide the link back to the post to correct me.
>
> To reopen. It is my firm belief that a space based weapons platform *can*
> stop long and even intermediate range ballistic (and active) missiles from
> reaching their intended targets. It can't be built today, as not
> *everything* needed is in place and validated as an integrated system.
> However I am convinced an active system could be built for a lot less than
> the cost of an equivalent ground based system.
>
> Such a system *could* stop "Iraqi Scuds" from reaching their intended
> targets. Since Scuds are short range missiles, obviously their intended
> targets do not include the continental US unless they are based a lot closer
> to the US than Iraq.
>
> To the question of whether we SHOULD build a system, one has to first answer
> the question of "what does that have to do with America?" which is
> essentially the question that Scott posed. Unlike most of Scott's questions,
> it's actually a valid one.
I asked a vailid one here:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=10297
> (although it was posed in his own inimitably
> annoying fashion)
Ah. That would be because I questioned YOU... and you never like that.
>
> There are several possible answers:
>
> - because we feel an obligation to keep the world safe from missiles.
That is not very libertarian? I thought the libertarian philosophy was "me!
me! me!" ?
>
> This is not a satisfactory answer to me, whether it is correct or not. I am
> not in the "we should be the world's policeman because we can" school.
Indeed. One normally hopes the police are impartial. World policing is more
of a protection racket.
>
> - because we will keep ourselves safe by protecting certain countries (like
> Taiwan for example)
>
> This is also not a satisfactory answer to me, whether it is correct or not.
> I'm not convinced it is correct, anyway. Taiwan and Germany and etc. should
> pay the cost for their defense.
So why site it in earlir posts:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=10302
Here you worry was ICBFS : Inter-Continental Ballistic Fishing Shacks
>
> - because we could make some cash by charging 1 B USD per intercept (cash in
> advance, please :-) ) to clients.
>
> This answer I like. Do good and get paid.
Personally, I prefer to do good and not get paid. 2nd to that is to pay, and
have others do good on my behalf.
What makes you think your country would only help the good guys? Has our
countries not a history of helping the bad guys?
> Still, it's rather flippant and
> not likely to be politically viable at this point in time.
>
> - because it will cause a space based manufacturing infrastructure to come
> into existance
>
> Note that the most effective system needs massive redundancy, that is lots
> and lots of orbiting equipment or lots and lots of ground based
> interceptors. A cost effective space based system needs a space based
> manufacturing infrastructure (native lunar materials made into solar cells
> and structural parts, only the control electronics come from earth at great
> launch cost) to BE cost effective.
>
> Hence I favor trying to build such a system for the side effect of getting a
> manufacturing infrastructure *more* than for the primary reason of keeping
> the world safe.
>
> Note that this is my opinion and I could care less (but only a TINY bit
> less, since I do care just a teeny bit) if you (the general you, that is,
> the entire audience) agree or not.
>
> Hope that helps correct Dan's particular misstatement as well as tying up a
> few loose ends on the debate, there were some unanswered assertions made by
> some.
lol. How ironic.
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
246 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
