[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lizard *
“1- Contrary to what an earlier poster said, the U.S. has broken treaties before, with Native Americans. In fact, our overall track record on keeping treaties is not good. But now we’re dealing with nuclear weapons wielded by countries on the other side of the globe. This is not the time to start suggesting we might just skip out on our side of the bargain again. There’s too much at stake.”
True enough. Now let us assume you are responsible for the lives of millions of people and there are weapons out there aginst which you have no known defence. In quantities which if used would destroy your people their culture and way of life which you are supposed to defend. What exactly would you do roll over and play dead.
“2- What purpose would such a system serve? Who is it supposed to protect us from? It’s pretty clear that Russia won’t be launching missiles at us anytime soon. The only other country that could or would concieveably launch more than one missile at us would be China. But not only are our missiles much better than theirs, but we have more of them. Plus, if China wipes out the U.S., there goes the destination of half of China’s own exports.”
As for the accuracy of China’s missiles that is impoving rapidly, and as for number at the moment one for each major city is enough. It’s not like we can stop them if they are launched. As for their exports they are far more interested in imports like food. We have one hell of a grain belt which they are very interested in getting access to (and should be allowed access to) so that they can feed their people. With the turmoil currently beseiging the Russian government the question needs to be asked who has their big red button? If anything Russian nuclear arms have become more of a threat than China’s.
“3- The people pushing for such a system claim it’s to protect us from “rogue” state likes North Korea and Iraq. Come on. Who are they kidding? People are starving and dying in those countries right and left. Are they going to solve their problems by launching one or two missiles at the U.S.?”
The same was said about Germany just prior to W.W.II I rest my case.
"4- Shouldn’t the fact that virtually every ally we have is opposed to the idea tell our leaders something? "
Here you have a point as the world politics should be concidered before the production and deployment of such a system. However research should be done on this just like we continue to research better bombs and tanks and other weapons and defences for warfare.
“5- A “missile shield,” even one that doesn’t really work, could lead to a false sense of security. This would make real war a much more profound shock on our national psyche, which could hurt our chances of winning such a war (assuming we survived the first strike).”
Tell that to the Japaneese. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a shock to the nation but we not only entered the war we fought it on two fronts and won. Yes the psychological effects of a successfull attack would be profound, but more likely if the attack were successfull there would be no one left to shock.
“The whole idea seems like a money-swallowing boondoggle to me. And maybe that’s the idea. I wonder if the defense contractors who would benefit happen to be located in the districts of the defense system’s strongest supporters in Congress? Hmmm.”
So was NASA, but the long term bennifit to the global welfare out striped the cost. Scientific research of any type is more often than not benneffical in the long term. We would not have the sattlites we have now were it not for the German rocket programs devised to destroy population centers in Western Europe.If you don’t like the way your Congressmen spend you tax dollars then vote for some one else or run for office youself.Just remember what many forget power and responsibility go hand in hand.
