At 16:08 20-6-01 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
> > Here's a thought: instead of wasting zillions of dollars on some missile
> > shield, let's spend that money on research into renewable energy.
>
>I've been skeptical of the claims of feasibility for both systems. I'm
>curious as to what your position is. Is it that renewable energy production
>is more practical than a missile shield, or that a missile shield is a bad
>idea?
Both, actually.
We need to invest in renewable energy production now, because sooner or
later we're going to run out of alternatives (those oil wells *will* dry up
eventually). If we don't invest in it, because "we still have enough fossil
fuels to last us a century", future generations will pay the price for our
ignorance.
The missile shield is a bad idea, because (1) the taxpayers will have to
pay billions of dollars for a system that doesn't come with a 100%
effectiveness garantuee, and (2) it might very well lead to another arms race.
>If the former, could you discuss your technical analysis of both to
>show why you consider economical renewable energy more likely to be feasible
>than an effective missile shield.
Sorry, no long technical analysis. Certainly not at 11 pm...
>If it is the latter, could you explain
>why you don't think protecting the United States, Europe, Japan, Australia
>from a potential threat from North Korea or Iran is worthwhile.
North Korea and Iran may seem (or even be) agressive, but I don't think
that threat is so great that it validates such a huge expenditure on a
missile shield.
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
