Scrap missile defense and fund community development...

How do you all *know* it doesn't work? How many people said Stealth wouldn't work? No one was sure you could really make an atomic bomb (and then people were concerned that the chain reaction would incinerate the whole world) but they got it to work.

The NMD may actually work NOW but all the negative information is just mis-information.

I had a student who was in Desert Storm and he worked on a Patriot Missile battery (or whatever you call it). Remember how the Patriots were heralded for there ability to shoot down Iraqi scuds? Then after the war the media said it was all propaganda and that the Patriots did a terrible job? Well, I asked my student (who was there) how accurate the Patriots were and all he could say was "they are much better than you know but I can't talk about it". I’ve known other people who were ex-military who were privy to classified stuff and they would say similar things like “it’s better than you think…” My point? You can't be sure what's true! If my student is telling the truth then the reports about the Patriots sucking was mis-information. After all, why let a potential enemy know exactly what your capabilities are?

Granted, we have to make our opinions on what we *know* and not on what might be and, Lord knows, the government has lied to us many times in the past. I'm just saying that when you say the NMD is not going to work/won't work and argue that every “expert” says it’s not going to work remember that “every expert” at one time said flight was not possible and going to the moon was not possible. If you told them about boats staying underwater for months at a time they would have laughed at you and probably would have told you that all these things were not only impossible but also totally unnecessary as well - the same things they are saying about NMD.

One last thing. Don't forget this is mostly about politics and not about technology. If one side wants something the other side will immediately find a way to make that something sound bad, useless, whatever... No one can argue that preventing nuclear missiles from hitting the US is a bad thing. So they attack its feasibility or its practicality because they want to spend the money on their projects and make the other side look bad.

So, you just never know...


------------------

 

Achebe, din't you HEAR? The Aggies already done INVENTED cold fusion. It didn't work but since when did that matter?

 

Oh did the Aggies invent it too? I heard some story that some Ute research professors got laughed out of the department for claiming something along those lines. hehe.

BTW BK, I think there's a new Jimbo to 'chase'.

------------------
women love me, fish fear me.

 

shanna, you've got to change your name.

------------------
www.swirve.com
"Pre-born, you're fine, pre-school, you're f*****."-George Carlin

 

No one can argue that preventing nuclear missiles from hitting the US is a bad thing. So they attack its feasibility or its practicality because they want to spend the money on their projects and make the other side look bad.

No one said that it is impossible (except maybe me ) -- but no credible source has said that it is. If the government is going to spend money on things that someone out there thinks is possible, why not spend $200B on Cold Fusion and $200B on turning lead into gold?

The point here is that you're spending a lot of money that could be useful in other areas on something that we have no reason to think will work but sounds great politically ("we're going to build a shield so you'll never have to worry about nuclear missiles again!"). Of course people are going to oppose something like that.

shanna, you've got to change your name.

Yeah, one of these days I'll create a new one....


------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

 

No one said that it is impossible (except maybe me ) -- but no credible source has said that it is. If the government is going to spend money on things that someone out there thinks is possible, why not spend $200B on Cold Fusion and $200B on turning lead into gold?

No credible source said flight was possible either. The top physicists in the world were divided on weather an atomic chain reaction was possible to create. We SHOULD be spending money on developing fusion technology. Plenty of money is already spent on social programs. The whole point of research is to figure out how to do new things!

But, remember, one of my points was that NMD may already work and we just don't know. All the other brew ha ha is simply misinformation.

Plus, while Reagan started Star Wars, it was revived under the Clinton administration! The Democrats didn't have a problem with it when Clinton brought it up! They were all saying that the US needed SOME sort of missile defense. But as soon as a Republican tries to follow through it gets attacked FOR POLITICAL REASONS. The Democrats are NO BETTER than the Republicans are. Both are equally in bed with special interests because they both need TONS of money to get elected. We (as in the American people) don't every really hear the truth. We just hear the political spin and it has nothing to do with what's right for the country and everything to do with making one side look good over the other to win elections.


------------------

 

Actually, I've been to a conference at MIT concerning the idea. Nearly all the prestigious physicists, nobel laureates, etc have said: it will probably never, ever work. Some of them even worked on the project.

Maybe...NMD actually works (and works very well) it just works nothing like we think it does. And all these tests and the way it's presented to the media (and to all these physicists) is actually a bunch of BS and is not the way it's really designed at all... Why? If the "enemy" knows how it actually works, then they will try to design their missiles to get around it (i.e. with dummies and decoys). And if they think it works a certain way (i.e. the way its publicized) then they will invest their time and dollars into defeating the way they think it works (as opposed to the way it actually works.

Now, this is all just speculation on my part and we have to form opinions on what we know as opposed to what we just guess at, but it makes sense from a military point of view. Why let the enemy know how it actually works and give them a chance to develop a counter strategy?

Misinformation is a classic military technique. Before the allies invaded Normandy in WWII, they convinced Hitler that the invasion was coming in at Calais. They did this via double agents and had Goodyear (I think) build a bunch of rubber, inflatable tanks and trucks so that it looked as if they were massing up at Dover. They even sent Patton (I believe) to Dover to complete the illusion. The result? All of Rommel's tanks were waiting at Calais instead of the actual invasion site.

Once again, you may be right and it may be a total boondoggle, but you just never know....



------------------