From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Jun 23 2003 - 11:50:33 MDT
--- Brett Paatsch <paatschb@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> One thing I don't get about the spending on tech weapons.
>
> Seems the US has such an overwhelming military advantage
> that no single country in their right mind would take them on
> in a conventional or even nuclear war.
You say "no single country in their right mind". You are making one too
many assumptions here.
The US leadership has reached a consensus that the people of the US
have a right to live free of fear of nuclear annihilation at the hands
of insane dictators. We also have a right to this freedom without
having to sacrifice a large fraction of our GDP to get it.
>
> Add to that the fact that the US is linked in through a number
> of alliances. And I wonder what the need is for the type of big
> toy "defence spending". I heard Australian PM Howard talking
> about possibly being a buyer of nuclear defence shielding
> systems. This seems completely nuts to me. The chances of
> being attacked by ICBMs etc seem virtually zero in comparison
> with say a suitcase nuke or dirty bomb or something similar.
> ICBMs leave a trail that's like a return to sender with interest
> message.
Defense against ICBMs is something we can do with big technology
affordably. You are also assuming that insane megalomaniacs like to
attack without getting credit and the acclaim of their insane
followers. Name one major terrorist attack where we don't know exactly
who is responsible for the attack after the fact. Secrecy is only
desired as a means of ensuring that an attack is brought off
successfully. Attacking an enemy is only effective if the enemy
understands why it was attacked. Anonymous terrorist attacks do not
achieve desired ends.
>
> I used to reckon the stuff about the military/industrial complex
> running on an economic imperative that had nothing to do with
> much else besides preserving the status quo in spending was a
> bit batty even in the cold war. But now, who is the US really
> preparing to fight or defend itself against?
The people of the US are essentially an isolationist people who value
their freedom, their livlihoods, and living in peace and resent the
degree to which the rest of you in the world have forced them to take
responsibility for things with your old world politics, agendas, hates,
feuds, etc. Truly advanced technology seems to indicate that getting
more of it actually will cost us less in the long run to keep the dogs
at bay.
>
> 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.
Terrorists and small scale guerrillas are always sheltered, trained,
aided, financed, and supplied by some nation-state(s) with an agenda of
their own. Denial of these shelters by overwhelming force seems to be
the strategy. One that has worked in Afghanistan, is working in Iraq,
and will continue to work elsewhere.
=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
Blog: Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
Flight sims: http://www.x-plane.org/users/greendragon/
Pro-tech freedom discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exi-freedom
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 23 2003 - 12:01:30 MDT