At 12:48 PM 3/3/01 +0100, Jeroen wrote:
>>Minor quiblble - the Bush Administration is actually very pro-space when it
>>comes to military applications and consequences of space.
>>
>>It obviously, however, has little appetite for new large spending programs
>>of any kind, though.
>
>The question is: why? Why don't Bush & Co. want to spend money on space
>programs that in the long run are important for the future of the entire
>world, but do want to spend billions on a space-based anti-missile shield
>they will never need and that will be technologically outdated by the time
>it becomes operational?
First, NASA doesn't exactly have an outstanding record on returning value
on spending. Although they don't say so, I think the Bush people would
prefer that a private company like Celera do to space exploration what they
did to the Human Genome Project.
As for missile defense - many rational people believe that the threat is
very real. For example, let's say that ten years from now, Pakistan -
which has perfected a single nuclear ICBM - has its government overthrown
(*again*) and a despotic leader ala Hussein or Ayatollah Khomeinei takes
over.
Now, the conventional logic by liberals is that Mutually Assured
Destruction will continue to protect us. But will it? Already, many
liberals argue that using nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was
uncalled for. So, let's say that said despot lobs a nuclear weapon at
Norfolk, VA. Will the American people *really* tolerate a retaliatory
nuclear attack that serve only to wipe out hundres of thousands of
Pakistani civilians? After all, said despot is hardly in power based on
the popular support of his citizens. Indeed, such a retaliatory strike
would likely only harden the Pakistani people (and the Muslim world) in
opposition against us. Besides, since that was the *only* Pakistani ICBM -
its not like nuclear retaliation was necessary to protect us from future
nuclear strikes.
SO, if the United States isn't going to retaliate with nuclear destruction
on a minor nuclear power - then the whole logic of Mutually Assured
Destruction breaks down. Suddenly, a petty dictator with the weapon can
*logically* choose to hit the United States with a nuclear weapon in order
to get what he wants.
Yes, Jeroen, all weapons become outdated eventually - but that has never
been a good reason to not develop them. Once the USA deploys a Missile
Defence, somebody somewhere will begin working on a way to thwart the
defence - but we'll keep working to keep our defences ahead of the game.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"The point of living in a Republic after all, is that we do not live by
majority rule. We live by laws and a variety of isntitutions designed
to check each other." -Andrew Sullivan 01/29/01
