You don't straighten any thing out by adding wrinkles

Post #5,440 by jb4 8/16/01 1:45:59 PM Reply	You don't straighten any thing out by adding wrinkles The converse would be "We're going to willingly expose ourselves to nuclear attack". Oh, you mean like what we have now? Like what we've had since the beginning of the nuclear age? Uh-huh...that's clear, alright. jb4 Resistance is not futile...)
Post #6,096 by addison 8/21/01 2:31:51 PM Reply	I didn't. Oh, you mean like we have now? Like what we've had since the beginning of the nuclear age? That was exactly my point. And its not since the beginning of the nuclear age. But since history around here is so derided, I won't explain further. Yep. Currently we're wide open, exposed to nuclear attack. Doesn't seem like a good idea, to me. Addison
Post #6,225 by wharris2 8/22/01 2:27:41 AM Reply	To add a little Yep. Currently we're wide open, exposed to nuclear attack. Doesn't seem like a good idea, to me. Even if we can't take every missile aimed at us out of the sky, isn't taking some of them out a desirable thing? OK, so Russia launches a strike and takes out Washington (cough IMO that would be a good thing), Atlanta, New York, a dozen other major cities. Perhaps the missile defense saves Washington (dammit!) but if it also saves the Wriight-Patterson base north of CIncinnati I'll be happy. (I live in an area that would be within the blast range of a strike there.) French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
Post #6,314 by jb4 8/22/01 12:45:10 PM Reply	The imminent threat is not addressed after wasting $BB One of the more astute posters on this topic (not in this thread, unfortunately) stated the obvious so succinctly: "The next nuclear attack isn't going to come on a missle, it's going to come in a backpack" (paraphrasing). So 'splain to me how spending untold billions on buttressing Lockheed-Martin's bottom line is going to address the most imminent threat of nuclear attack? Oh, I forgot...we'll just put up video cameras everywhere.... jb4 Resistance is not futile...)
Post #6,354 by addison 8/22/01 3:34:01 PM Reply	That's merely one possibility. "The next nuclear attack isn't going to come on a missle, it's going to come in a backpack" Maybe. And we've got ways of intercepting backpacks. Or trucks. Sure, it might slip through undetected, but there is an ability in place to potentially stop it. (Additionally, the intelligence agencies would likely have some prior warning as they have for the other terrorist acts, as the World Trade Center, and Oklahoma City - obviously that doesn't always work, but the "advantage" to nuclear weapons is they are rather hard to hide (from detection equipment. The lead time has to be increased, and its not easy to quickly change the target - unlike a missile - which could be launched, without prior warning, and be over any city in the US in about 30-45 minutes, today) So 'splain to me how spending untold billions on buttressing Lockheed-Martin's bottom line is going to address the most imminent threat of nuclear attack? Its very simple: you're quite possibly wrong. In case I need to explain further: There is more likelihood (in my opinion) of a nuclear missile being fired than a small warhead smuggled in. (And the ones that are "man portable" aren't anywhere NEAR as big as what you can stick on a missile, for obvious reasons). So we're back to your versus my opinion on the likihood of something. Leaving yourself exposed to the current big missiles, because you might not stop a small hand-carried one is still illogical. Unless you can be CERTAIN that that is the only attack you will be experiencing. How do you propose to prove that? Addison
Post #6,370 by DonRichards 8/22/01 4:53:38 PM Reply	All of you are missing something How is it no one is questioning if this Star Wars II will ever work any better than the first Star Wars boondoggle? "When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
Post #6,382 by addison 8/22/01 8:55:54 PM Reply	I don't think I'm missing that. What boondoggle? You have to define "Star Wars" - most of that is still theoretical (but research on things like attomic-pumped X-ray lasers has progressed greatly). Most of that was at the time theoretical, and still mostly theoretical. This is down to the good, ol counter-ballistic trajectory idea. Which has lots of prior history (anti-aircraft, anti-missile). There wasn't really a "Star Wars I". There was Sprint and Spartan, which as I've heard, worked OK, but that's back to the same sort of thing that's currently being talked about. Addison
Post #6,429 by Ashton 8/23/01 8:31:16 AM Reply	I don't think I've the patience just now to dissect your "I THINK it WILL work..." {yawn} and variations on that theme. I conclude simply - you'll pick some wishful idea of 'techno'-later.. VS any basic human common sense-now.. every time. In other areas we call that, You've Got Faith! Swell. I've Got Faith Too: Whether it would ever have worked, or not - what it Will torpedo now and Next makes it: Not Worth It. A.

Welcome to IWETHEY!