Spike Jones wrote:
> You may have heard by now about how the national missile defense
> is all a big reaganesque fantasy, etc. I was just wondering if anyone
> here has any strong opinions in this regard.
> The local paper, the San Jose Mercury News, decided to cash in
> its credibility thus: they ran an article with a column on the front page
> and the entiiiiirrrre baaack paaaage, going on and on about how the
> concept is flawed, would neeeeever work, how it was all a big boon-
> doggle, how 4 out of 5 defense scientists surveyed agreed it would
> never work, etc. That was in Wednesday's paper. The entire back
> In all that verbiage, there was not one word in there, not a single word,
> about the last two THAAD missile firings, both successful. I suppose
> there was some bizarre line of reasoning that lead to the decision that the
> fact that a feat has already been accomplished is irrelevant to the
> arguement of whether or not it is possible.
> The saaaammme daaaaay that the huge negative article was running, the
> defense scientists at Sandia used a ground base laser to destroy an
> incoming missile. Think about that for a minute. That story was
> reported in the Merc, on page 10A, twoooo seeennnntences, one of
> which was totally irrelevant to the event, having to do with Israelis
> vs Lebanese or something. So. One sentence. Vs the back page.
> I would have let it drop, but today they ran ANOTHER eeyore
> article. you remember Eeyore, the donkey? Dismal, droopy
> character, not extropian at all: "It'll never wooork, oh deeear,
> woooe is meeee...", whereas Tigger is more my style, bouncing
> around on his tail, always having fun and enjoying life: Woo hoo!
> Wooo hooo!
> So I fired off a letter to the editor, scolding him, asking if they
> had anyone there at that paper who was responsible for *balance*.
> In the Eeyore article, there was no actual news. All of it was
> merely political commentary. When an actual news item happened,
> they gave it two sentences. Was this the Mercury *News*, or was
> it the San Jose Mercury Propaganda Sheet? Could they manage
> to mix a little Tigger with the Eeyore?
> I know some say the National Missile Defense could be made
> to work but shouldnt. I guess we need to wait until a city
> is actually nuked off the face of the earth to start developing
> such a thing?
> What say ye, extropians? spike
Funny thing was the other night, Gen. Al Haig and an Air Force General
were interviewed on the Putin summit and SDI, and when asked directly if
lasers have been used to shoot down ballistic missiles, they both pulled
the 'can't confirm or deny' act....
Scientists for Social Responsibility admitted back in '87, and I quote
from one of their directors,"The debate is no longer scientific, its
economic." (See "Mutual Assured Survival") They have been trying to
argue that if the enemy can build its offensive capability for less
money that it costs you to build your defensive capability, then you've
already lost. They pointedly ignored a) the fact that the economic
capaiblities of the offense and the defense might be different, and b)
the fact that the cost of the defense is less expensive than the cost of
allowing your infrastructure and economy to be destroyed in an attack.
I can guarrantee that the dems will wait until someone gets nuked before
they pull their heads out of their asses. The only reason Clinton is
even supporting this is because the generals are about ready to munity
or retire en mass in protest against the way Clinton has emasculated the
military across the board while at the same time exhausted it with more
deployments in peacetime than under any other president.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:08 MDT