Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Are you kidding? Ever since the end of the cold war there has been constant calls for the end of funding for SDI (including on this board). Why do you think Ty and Adder are debating this? Why does every time an SDI test fails it is posted on this board as a "see I told you so..."?
You would think this would be one area every rational human being in the United State could agree on, but it is not. Like I said, my theory is that since SDI was originally proposed by Reagan a large swath of Democrats and liberals will always be against the idea, no mater how much sense it makes, simply because of who proposed it.
|
I happen to like toys, and view the march of technology as unavoidable. In a world where MAD prevails, SDI could upset the equilibrium and make the world more dangerous; I'm not sure MAD prevails anymore.
Reagan's star wars program was, for the most part, a conscious rejection of MAD and a switch to a concept of winnable nuclear war; that made about as much sense as the Rumsfeld Doctrine, especially given the time and technology. But, as I said, the march of technology is unavoidable, and we're not in a MAD world, and this is technology that will progress somewhere. And, in retrospect, I'd give Star Wars this bit of credit -- spending like a drunken sailor on defense played some small role (less than many would claim, but still some) in the break-up of the Soviet Union.
But if I'm budgeting, I'm expecting the rogue country to bring in the nukes via suicide bomber, since the delivery mechanisms to cross either the Atlantic or Pacific are probably a tougher thing to build these days than the bomb itself. And that would affect my priorities.
