> I disagree here Michael and here is why. In the last years we have poured > over 70 billion into the system with no actual success. The last (and only) > success was because they told the system right where to aim and used a > reflector to help the missile paint the target. It was not even aiming at a > MIRV, just one large target. MIRVs are small and very, very hard to hit.
This is a bit of an aside and not directed at you Gary but in response of posts that are paralleling this one, but during those "last years" wasn't Clinton in charge? We're people comparing him to Reagan and everything wrong with the 80's? No? That's an example of different standards. That was one of the issues that I supported Clinton on. I think Nick has been commenting on this really well. We have to walk before we crawl. How many rockets blew up before we finally got one to go up? I don't know, but I know it was a lot. Should we have quit? No, because the reasons that we were doing it for were noble (the moon). I don't subscribe to the Big bad evil corporation mentality so that argument fails with me. I believe that our government, over the past however many years that this thing has been developed, is doing it with the intent to protect its citizens. > Unilaterally pulling out of a negotiated treaty is a bad idea and set's a > poor precedent for the future. In essence, it says that you cannot trust > American to stick to a treaty. That is exactly what it says in fact. What > might America pull out of in the future that we cannot agree on after we > change the rules? It would be a bad idea if that treaty were still serving our best interests, but I don't believe that the ABM treaty, in its current form, is. There were attempts to modify it, but those attempts failed so a decision was made; stick with a treaty that doesn't allow us to develop technologies that allow us to defend ourselves, or to dump it. We dumped it. The trust issue is a very good point and is, in my opinion, the really bad side of doing this. I think that Bush is putting a lot of faith in Powell to reassure people that this isn't as bad as it could be. I have faith in him too. As for the money, those other things are being taken care of. Regarding health care, you were in the military right? I don't know about the Air Force but the Army medical system left something to be desired, and I think that would be a fairly accurate model of a government run system. I know 3 people personally that are 'disabled because of doctor screw ups in the Army and one that is dead because of malpractice. And guess what...you can't sue. If the government ran a health care system, you wouldn't be able to sue either. No accountability. Furthermore, the government has to meet quotas which means that gender, race, etc. is a larger factor than qualifications. No thanks, I'll pass. Good points though Gary. I like debating with you...it's so easy to win ;-) Even easier then debating Larry :-o ;-) Michael Corrigan Programmer Endora Digital Solutions www.endoradigital.com 630/942-5211 x-134 ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary P. McNeel, Jr. To: CF-Community Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 1:03 PM Subject: RE: Ouch I disagree here Michael and here is why. In the last years we have poured over 70 billion into the system with no actual success. The last (and only) success was because they told the system right where to aim and used a reflector to help the missile paint the target. It was not even aiming at a MIRV, just one large target. MIRVs are small and very, very hard to hit. Unilaterally pulling out of a negotiated treaty is a bad idea and set's a poor precedent for the future. In essence, it says that you cannot trust American to stick to a treaty. That is exactly what it says in fact. What might America pull out of in the future that we cannot agree on after we change the rules? For the sake of argument, why would we not spend that money in other ways? Why not reorganize our espionage system? What will it cost us to maintain and support such a system? What are the alternatives? Who are these other countries and what is the status of there BM program? My guess it about 0% complete. North Korea has had no success. We can certainly manipulate the world enough to keep them from ever getting one. What motivates the companies that want the contracts? Is it altruism? Greed? Patriotism? Just some of my thoughts. Frankly, when people bitch about taxes and government meddling, this is what I think of. We spend far more on this type of stuff than on actually making life for people in America better. -Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 10:35 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Ouch > > > Because there are countries/organizations/etc. that really don't like > the US and are actively seeking the means to launch > nuclear/chemical/biological weapons at the US and it is only a matter of > time until they get it. One way to defend against this is to pursue the > course that our government is currently on, to develop a defensive > system that will help to protect us against such attacks. The ABM > treaty prevents us from doing that. So, in order to develop this system, > we need to change it or withdraw from it. Putin and Bush have met four > times that I can recall to change it and it has been unsuccessful. So, > we pull out. Makes sense to me. > > Michael Corrigan > Programmer > Endora Digital Solutions > www.endoradigital.com > 630/942-5211 x-134 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Benjamin Falloon > To: CF-Community > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 10:21 AM > Subject: Re: Ouch > > > why is this good news? > I'd be interested in your reasons... > > Benjamin > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 2:16 AM > Subject: Re: Ouch > > > > >-- President Bush announces U.S. withdrawing from > > >Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. > > > > Best news all week. That weenie Daschle apparently thinks it's a bad > idea, > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
