Message posted by gary on January 28, 2001 at 02:41:53 EST:
Again I ask, please do not mix in comments like "left wing". It serves no purpose. You clearly missed my itemized list of questions. Go back and address them. Most noteably item 2, the next generation missile the enemy will develop. You make a missile defense shield, I will be obligated to make a missile that can penetrate it. That is how the game is played. Clinton is history, so why bring him up? Please comment on the unilateral warhead reduction Bush is proposing. How is that good? Why don't we trade the reduction for something? Again, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a unilateral reduction is stupid, and I don't care who proposed it. If you think the unilateral reduction is a good idea, why not turn in a few of your guns to the PD. Same idea, i.e. what is in it for you? The techonology for Hiroshima was based on good science, so why would I argue it wouldn't work? SDI has no science behind it, which is why it isn't working even on these gimicky test the DOD sets up. The original Reagan SDI using space based lasers actually had more science behind it. The current generation SDI has a goal of hitting a bullet with a bullet. To win, you need an edge. A laser in space that could knock out a missile would have a speed advatage as the laser is traveling at the speed of light. Further, you could have multiple firings. Hitting a bullet with a bullet could have multiplel firing as well, but really that would mean multiple missile launches, all of which have to be controlled. You would depleat your stock eventually, if not the manpower. Think of the space based laser as a quick loader. The reasons Reagan's space based laser didn't fly is twofold. First, the chemical lasers really didn't work very well. Of course, they could be refined. Second, we signed treaties not to militarize space, i.e. no space based weapons. Had we set up these weapons, the enemy would do a pre-emptive strike and destroy them. I've read quite a bit on SDI, and really don't believe it has a chance, all based on science. The real problem with the return of SDI is that even if the budget were infinite, there is a limited amount of manpower you can employ. [The 3 resources of business are land, labor, and capital.] If you build SDI, you will delay some other project. It will leave the US in a weaker position. I
In Reply to: Answers.... posted by Steve A. on January 28, 2001 at 01:00:28 EST:
Replies: