Quote:
Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I don't think anybody is against the concept of missile defense. The "liberals" who oppose pouring money into SDI are actually conservative: they're trying to eliminate huge goverment spending on things that don't work. Show us a reasonable budget with realistic estimates of what we get for our money. Reagan has nothing to do with it.
|
The liberals were against SDI since day one. There reasons for opposing it have changed but it has been the same politicians and these politicians are usually on the liberal side of the column. For antimissile defense the government should spend tons of money on it even if there is only a ten percent chance that it might ever work. This conservative angle is total BS. The number one responsiblity of the Federal Government is national secuirty, and there is no more immediate and real threat to national security that nuclear missiles. It is just a matter of time before a rogue state develops the capability to launch a nuclear weapon, or some other WMD, at the United States. North Korea my have that capability. If North Korea decided right now to say that the United State give it a hundred billion dollars or they will launch we would be in a really screwed situation. There is no question that eventually a system could be made to work. It is just a matter of resources and effort. Can you really put a price tag on Los Angeles, San Diego or San Francisco? Every proposal for research and spending on missile defense should get 100 percent vote of the house and senate. Anyone that is against spending on SDI, or wants to reduce, is a moron. Plain and simple.
