At 01:25 AM 6/23/01, you wrote:
>Darryl Shannon wrote:
> >Likewise, a NMD doesn't have to be perfect to be worthwhile. A system
> >that shoots down 90% of the missiles is better than a system that
> >shoots down 0%, right? We're blithely ignoring cost for a moment here.
> > And anyway, the purpose of the missile screen isn't so much to shoot
> >down nuclear missiles as to convince people that it isn't worthwhile to
> >try to shoot nuclear missiles at us, since they are liable to get shot
> >down.
>
>It may discourage enemies from shooting the missiles they have, but their
>missile supply is not fixed. People may build *more* missiles in response
>to a missile shield: if they used to need 10 missiles, now they need to
>build 100. That's a nasty unintended consequence.
>
>Another point: who are we defending against? If it's big countries like
>Russia or China, they can certainly build more missiles. If it's
>terrorists, they're not likely to use a missile at all. They'll just drive
>up in a truck. A missile shield is a lousy defense against either of these
>kind of enemies.
>[BEGIN PARANOIA] But a missile defense is an excellent way to transfer
>money from tax payers to defense contractors. [END PARANOIA] :-)
[BEGIN LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE] Who may then provide good-paying jobs for
techie types. [END LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE]
-- Ronn! :)
