Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Gosh kuvasz, even Liberals suffer from Althzheimers. Pretty insensitive of you.
Not really, it takes someone nearly brain dead to think of such a thing as giving your enemy the keys to your castle. Btw: Reagan was the one who stated he wanted to give away the Star Wars technology to the Soviets. It was pure political posturing intended to entice the Democrats in Congress who were against spending the money on it to support the program.
What would your response have been had Clinton offered to give it away to the Chinese? You folks on the right are still screaming about Clinton being a traitor for allowing the private sector to transfer electronic technologies to the Chinese. Technology by the way which was used to allow the Chinese to send into space payloads for US communications satellites.
So, its still standard stuff from you folks. You think the sun shines out the a$$hole of anyone who is a Republican and believe any crazy thing they say is okay without thinking clearly about it
I said:
Quote:so you are saying we should spend HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS of tax payer money for this technology, and YOU WANT TO GIVE IT AWAY TO OTHER NATIONS?
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:YES THAT IS WHAT SHE IS SAYING!
If one accepts the argument that by providing all nations with the means to deter nuclear attacks, the whole world is made safer, then one might be expected to see the billions spent as a pretty good investment.
It is not necessary to use the flight of a missile to deliver a nuke.
Similarly, it is analogous to the idea that the best protection against bullets would not be to ban guns but for everyone to wear a bulletproof vest.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Geez, I thought you One World Order, Kofi Annan Lovers would appreciate an effort to share valuable technology with our fellow riders on the blue marble that is the earth.
You should remember this when you accuse me of being innervate UN supporter. I am an America-firster. Apparently, neither you nor Lash is.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote: Awfully capitalist of you kuv. It's really too easy to point out that an extension of your argument is that should we someday develop a cure for cancer (no, let's make it AIDS - that seems to reliably pluck the heartstrings of Liberals) we would be fools to GIVE IT AWAY FOR FREE! Think of the bucks we could make on Africa alone!
Maybe you forgot, I am a capitalist, (its in my profile) owing my own company and all. And a cheap renewable energy source has profound world-wide implications, a cure for a disease, even one as bad as AIDS is not comparable to the global societal watershed a new clean energy source would have. It would re-invent the world. 100 years ago no one knew what they could do with an electron, now our society is based upon its use.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Classic! Cheaper and safer and morally superior if we unilaterally destroy our nukes. After all, once Big Bad Amerika gives up its nukes, why would any other country have a reason to stockpile them? Appreciating that you are a rationalistic devotee of facts and figures, I hesitate to question you on how you know that a "system" to "monitor" all offensive weapons would so cheap. If I didn't know you were the personification of rationalism, and therefore that you would not render a comment that did not rest on a rock solid foundation of scientific proof, I might even question whether or not such a "system" is even remotely possible.
I notice you failed to make it thru even one post without setting up a straw man argument to knock down.
If you are going to accuse me of unilateral disarmament, you have to provide proof that I advocated it. So where is your proof? That I used the term "we?" You are confused. The "we" referred to the human race.
The precursors to such programs are already being developed and implemented in a number of countries and is referred to as the IAEA. It worked well in Iraq it seems.
On an aside, the proposal to give away a missile shield so that everyone would have one, thereby making the world safe from the technologies that produce nuclear tipped missiles is pretty stupid. It fails to address the issue of the weapons and their radioactive material in the first place, which would still exist, and which as the ex-Soviet Union nuclear and missile technologies have shown can be bartered on the black market.
Again, one need not attach a nuke to a missile. It can be transported in a variety of ways and you would still have the potential for nuclear blackmail. But you would have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on something that can not defend you from alternative methods of delivering the nuke.
If you would glance over your shoulder at the history of warfare, you would see that every time someone invents a defense for a weapon, someone else figures out how to overcome the defense. Past will once again be prologue with any Star Wars defense.
