Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I am 100% behind the concept of missle defense, but this position is ridiculous. Unless you are willing to see 100% of the budget go to missle defense, you are implicitly acknowledging that there are limits on the amount we can spend on this. Unfortunately, those seeking funds are not always doing so out of the goodness of their hearts. There are some programs that deserve to continue to be funded. There are others that do not, but they are so entrenched in the DC scene that it becomes very difficult to stop, so we end up throwing good money after bad.
By the same token, those on the left the chide the concept each and every time that there is a failed test are extremely short sided. We will have the technology at some point, probably fairly soon, and that will be a good thing for all of us.
That said, missle defense is not the be all end all, especially in an era of nonconventional warfare. At the present point in time, I am far more concerned about bio and techno warfare than I am about nuclear. NK is not going to bomb us, because that is not in their interest. Neither is Iran. They have developed nukes as a defensive measure because mutual assured destruction is still a valid theory.
|
I am not for 100% of the budget going to SDI. But a hell of lot more resources than are dedicated to it now. In any defense appropriation there are troubles with wasted money and badly directed funds based on who has the best lobbyist. But this has nothing to do with the logic behind SDI research.
A rational leadership of a country may not nuke us. But an irrational leader might. Delivering WMDs to the United states, contrary to popular belive, is not that easy. That is why it has not been done yet. But lobbing a missile with a nuke or some other WMD is a very real threat.
If war breaks out on the Korean peninsula, I believe there is a strong chance NK will launch a missile at us.
