At 11:30 PM 6/13/01 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>5% of the worlds people using 25% of the world's energy. Pretty obvious who
>should cut back the most.
Pretty obvious to me that the rest of the world has been impoverished by
corrupt governments, and is not nearly using their fair share of energy.
>Not my desire for a system who's $100 million tests (which consist of trying
>to hit the lamest excuse for a target that they could get away with,
including
>a "decoy" that actually aided detection) have all been miserable failures.
This is simply a lie. I don't know if you are lieing, or just repeating
someone else's lie, but the above is simply not true. Almost all previous
tests of the missile defense system have been successes, save for the most
recent test (or possibly the most recent two, if a test occurred that I am
not remembering right now.) In the test that failed, moreover, the
failure was a result of a malfunction in the booster system of the
interceptors. Given that we have been using missile boosters for decades,
the failure of that test has almost no bearing on the potential merits of
the missile defence technology.
Moreover, your above paragraph suggests a profound illiteracy regarding the
scientific method. Care to identify a single new technology that was
developed by skipping all the simple tests and going directly to the most
difficult test? Care to identify a single new technology that was
developed without ever failing a test?
>Not my desire for a system that could be avoided by the simplest of ploys. I
>mean, really, come on, tons and tons of drugs are smuggled into this country,
>you don't think that if a "rogue" country wanted to it couldn't sneak a nuke
>in? Hell, they could probably disguise it as drugs to get it in.
This suggests that you have a profoun misunderstanding of the mechanics of
delivering nuclear weapons. First, how many of those drugs are coming
from the Middle East and Asia? More importantly, if smuggling is such a
cheap and efficient way of delivering a nuclear weapon, *WHY* are all the
rogue states on the planet vigorously pursuing more and better missiles?
>Not to mention the forign relations nightmare that the whole stupid idea
>threatens to trigger. Is there a better way to trigger a new arms race?
This
>whole thing has more to do with grown up kids wanting new toys to play with
>than anything else.
This is, of course, as opposed to the current situation, where Iraq, Iran,
Pakistan, the DPRK, etc. have absolutely no desire to pursue nuclear-tipped
ballistic missiles. Yeah, triggering an arms race is a real risk here.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Compassionate conservatism is the way to reconcile the two most vital
conservative intellectual traditions: libertarianism & Catholic social
thought."
-Michael Gerson, advisor to George W. Bush
