-Caveat Lector-
14 March 99
Granted, there are folks who believe an SDI-type defense will _not_ work. But
arguing that it's not worth spending the money on something that _may_ not work is
certainly not a valid reason against developing the technological means to defend
the U.S. against a possible missile attack from Russia or China or any other rogue
state that decides to test America's [or its allies'] will.
There are still many reasons [i.e. stability, safety, deterrence, etc.] why the
U.S. ought to further explore this project and work jointly with its Allies in
perfecting the technology that makes a "Star Wars"-type of defense functional, and
work well.
There are pro and con arguments for everything. Sometimes it's worth to argue
point by point, and make excuses like "It's not worth the money," etc. But, in
this case, where the lives of millions are at stake, the risks are too high to be
proved wrong.
Isn't avoiding mass destruction on U.S. soil a national priority? Isn't R&D of a
national missile defense in this country's best interests?
I would argue that it _is_ worth the money, considering all the gunk procurable
pet projects spent by the U.S. Congress. What makes an SDI-type defense system
any less important on the grand scale of this country's long laundry list of
priorities?
There are naysayers everywhere, making lots of different excuses based on various
SDI research analysis. One ought to ask themselves the source of some of the
results, and Time articles cited below.
Who's behind crushing the SDI for the U.S. and its Allies? What's their agenda?
Why do they care so much whether or not the U.S. develops a national missile
defense system?
Technology that helps mankind was not developed out of thin air. It was perfected
and made to work due to ingenuity, persistence and the true American spirit.
A recent poll [I can't recall the source, but maybe someone out there does]
indicated that a majority of folks in the U.S. believe America currently has some
sort of protection set up against a missile attack. While we know that's not the
case, one can't help but wonder about the kind of mass destruction that would
occur and how many peoples' lives would be ended without the protective shield of
an SDI-type defense network.
Ric Carter wrote:
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A.C. Szul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> OK, so maybe you're not an agent. Still, the "rogue state firing
> ballistic missiles at the US" scenario is bogus, Star Wars can't
> deal with likely attacks, there are better ways to spend the money.
> In STAR WARS: THE SEQUEL [TIME, 22 Feb. 99] Mark Thompson writes:
>
> "A lot of experts don't believe the missile shield will work. Even
> if it can be made to thwart incoming ICBMs, they argue, it will be
> worthless against the lo-tech route that nukes or biochemical war-
> heads would be more likely to take. A renegade state could sneak a
> nuclear bomb into New York City in a truck or the hold of a freighter,
> or simple lob a Scud-like missile full of lethal germs into Manhattan
> from 20 miles offshore, neatly passing underneath the shield. Even
> the Joint Chiefs of Staff 'worry more about a suitcase bomb going
> off in one of our cities,' [Sec. of Defence William] Cohen admits.
> 'Very few countries are going to launch an ICBM, knowing that they
> are going to face virtual elimination.'"
>
> So if someone fires an ICBM at the US, whether or not Star Wars II is
> up and running, we'll know where it came from, and can/will fry that
> particular portion of geography - which is a helluva deterrant, one
> that's worked for the last few decades. But if we deploy a perfect
> Star Wars system, we're GUARANTEEING that ONLY stealth.war will be
> waged against the US, since no rational opponent will suicidally
> launch anything that will be 1) shot down and 2) traced and avenged.
>
> In fact, the only opponent that Star Wars would be useful against, is
> an opponent that thinks it COULD launch a successful pre-emptive strike
> against the US ICBM fleet if there were no ABM system. That opponent
> was the old USSR, and it's no longer capable of mounting such an attack,
> if such an attack could EVER have been launched - I'd argue that the
> submarine missile cruiser fleet made that an impossible dream anyway.
>
> So, Star Wars II is clearly NOT about actualy defending the US from
> rogue states - it's about defending military contractors from reduced
> income. Bother.
>
------------->snip>----------------
Regards,
-A
http://www.erols.com/mack97
"The sharpest tool in the shed." -- anonymous
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
