At 10:01 PM 8/29/01 -0700 Doug wrote:
>> If the proliferation of nuclear weapons to Pakistan, India,
>
>ancient history
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! (ROFLH!)
Five years ago, right? (giggle)
I can just imagine the reaction of you liberals if Bush was President in
'96 and decided immediately in the wake of the nuclear tests by India and
Pakistan to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. OH boy.......
Besides, I love how you've nicely made this a damned-if-you-do,
damned-if-you-don't scenario. So Doug, do you think that we should have
withdrawn from the ABM Treaty 5 years ago now? Or do you think we should
wait to withdraw from the ABM Treaty until we have much greater confidence
in the technology?
If we're only allowed to withdraw from the ABM Treaty in the wake of a
crisis by your standard now, I don't expect to hear any more comments from
you about waiting for technological development.
>> and DPRK
>
>They _have_ tested a bomb? We've confirmed that they have the tech?
It is the consensus of foreign policy experts that they have a bomb.
They also recently (1998 or 1999?) developed a missile (much to our
surprise) that is capable of reaching the United States with a nuclear
payload.
>>(and the likely development of nuclear weapons by Iraq and Iran within 10
years)
>
>Something that might happen doesn't really count as an event of any
>kind.
It most certainly does! Once someone like Saddam Hussein has multiple
nuclear missiles capable of striking the United States, it may very well be
too late for missile defense. If Hussein thinks that we can build
defenses faster than he can build missiles, deciding to build a missile
defense may well provide a perverse incentive for him to blow his wad.
>One wonders, if deterrent was such a wonderful thing during
>the cold war, why it is so inadequate now?
Actually, deterrant was a *terrible* thing during the Cold War. I am
surprised to hear a liberal like you suggest otherwise. During the Cold
War, we were preached incessantly to about the dangers of nuclear war, and
the moral imperative for nuclear disarmament. Indeed, we darn near ended
up with a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis (or was that part of
the "wonderful" aspect?)
Finally, deterrant was our *chosen* (*not* "wonderful) option during the
Cold War for no other reason than that adequate missile defense was not
possible. IMHO, we got lucky that deterrance worked for as long as it
did, and that no accident or mistake resulted in a nuclear exchange.
In a world where the likes of Iraq, Iran, and DPRK all have nuclear weapons
- I'm not willing to bet the lives of millions on deterrance working again.
Quite simply, missile defence is a moral imperative as soon as we can
make the technology feasible.
>So why is Bush pushing Star Wars? My guesses:
Actually, Bush is not pushing for a space-based laser system at all......
but you haven't exactly won many points for accuracy in this message so
far, so I'm not surprised.
>1. Defense industry welfare/maintenance of a healthy defense
>industry - If we don't maintain the flow of money to these
>companies, they will wither as we have seen them do over the last
>decade.
>
>2. Maintenance of forward progress in defense technology (closely
>related to 1.) If we don't continue to innovate, we will lose our edge.
>
>3. A missile defense system would be ineffective as proposed, but
>if tipped with nuke warheads they might well be very effective.
>Just the EMF (?) from a nuclear explosion would probably knock out
>the guidance systems of ballistic missiles within many km. Nobody
>can talk about this of course because practically everyone on the
>planet would throw a fit if that's what we said we were going to do.
>
>Please note that the above are only guesses based on speculation.
Yeah, and the sincere desire to protect millions of Americans and their
cities from nuclear blackmail, nuclear annihiliation, or both had
absolutely, positively, nothing whatsoever to do with his position in the
very least. In fact, I betcha that it will be a cold day in hell before
Bush, or anyother greedy, mud-grubbing, sanctimonious right-wing Republican
ever cares at all that Americans might die from nuclear weapons in the
hands of the sort of brutal, petty dictatorships that usually commit two
human rights atrocities before eating breakfast each morning.
I honestly don't know what is more disturbing, the arrogance of your
cynical straw-man characerizations, or the fact that they keep getting
reposted every other week.
JDG
P.S. Was this a flame? You betcha. But if people are going to accuse
Bush, and by extension, people like me who agree with Bush, of having the
above motivations for their beliefs - moreover including a secret plan to
detonate nuclear bombs in the atmosphere so as to maximally spread
radiation across the planet Earth - then I'm going to flame them. I
personally can't imagine a greater insult than to suggest that Bush,
myself, or anybody else would willfully design a system that would risk
such extreme ecological damage for no greater purpose than to pay off
buddy-buddy defense contractors. I'm willing to bet that nobody e-mailed
Doug off-List about posting such dredge.
I consider myself dinged.
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
We are products of the same history, reaching from Jerusalem and
Athens to Warsaw and Washington. We share more than an alliance.
We share a civilization. - George W. Bush, Warsaw, 06/15/01
