From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Sun Jun 22 2003 - 21:36:50 MDT
I wrote:
> The types of weapons being
> built seem to be the wrong ones for fighting terrorists and small
> scale guerrilla wars. And these seem to be exactly the sorts of
>conflict that are likely to arise.
>
> Brett,
> They do seem to be so but given the long lead times on
> these weapons you have to be looking ahead for 10 or 20 years.
> Ron h.
Fair enough, lead times would be a consideration. But
presumably the lead times on weapons construction are not
greater for the US than for other nations. And I'd imagine
that the US intel would (should?) be capable of picking up
on weapons programs and increased spending of potential
adversaries pretty quickly.
So I guess the question becomes, if you are part way
through developing a weapon or weapons system in the
US and have sunk costs and you find that the weapon
system is not going to have any real practical application
do you keep throwing good money after bad?
I'm wondering if the US Govt is employing a bit of Keynesian
economics. Keeping the economy going by generating
weapons in this case that are not relevant but that people and
industry know how to make. I really don't know that this is
the case. I'm just wondering.
The notion of Australia, with all its major cities around the
coast buying a nuclear defence shield seems to defy all
logic except maybe political logic.
- Brett Paatsch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 22 2003 - 21:44:06 MDT