Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

No commander in chief

  1. Oct 31, 2004 #1

    kat

    User Avatar

    No commander in chief
    Proving once again that truth is stranger then fiction.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 31, 2004 #2
    Peace man!

    Your guy (Huessy) is simply a real hawk, and he earns money from that.
    And he's proud about that:
    "I was honored to join the Reagan administration in the early fall of 1981. I was given one main job. Get Congress to secure funding for the deployment of the new MX missile."
    This guy want war, needs war ... just an "independent" spokesman of the weapon industry.

    After the collapse of USSR as an enemy they needed a new enemy. Fits with the NPAC doctrine.
    Sometimes I ask myself ... who's kat working for in monitoring PF.
    :cool:
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2004
  4. Oct 31, 2004 #3

    kat

    User Avatar

    Lol, sometimes I think you must be an Al Queda operative but I guess I"m safe on the internet... :surprised

    But this has nothing to do with KERRY's statements. :wink:
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2004
  5. Oct 31, 2004 #4

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Kat, it's very easy to tkae things out of context. So easy that most people will not give partisan op-eds very much factual value.

    Who can I sway with quotes from Krugman ?
     
  6. Oct 31, 2004 #5

    kat

    User Avatar

    Lol, nice of you to avoid commenting on Kerry's statements.
     
  7. Oct 31, 2004 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The NMD is a pork project. It is being installed as we speak. Even though this has been going on since the 60's, it still doesn't work. By the time it does work, LASER technology makes it obsolete.
     
  8. Oct 31, 2004 #7

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I won't comment on them unless I know what context they were used in. But you seem to have no such qualms.
     
  9. Oct 31, 2004 #8

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So is that op-ed supposed to be the 'truth' or the 'fiction' ?
     
  10. Nov 1, 2004 #9
    Yeah this guy is just supporting bush cause he knows bush will give him more business, i wouldn't think to much of it if i were you
     
  11. Nov 1, 2004 #10

    He supports the candidate serving his interests? OMG!!!!!!!1 Burn him at the stake!!!!!

    Oh, wait...
     
  12. Nov 1, 2004 #11
    I would personally give Krugman more credit than that, but nevertheless I agree with you. Kat, instead of posting one of Krugman's articles I'll give you this http://www.pkarchive.org You can then insert the statement, "Truth is stranger than fiction" after every paragraph. You want to go absurd statement for absurd statement? You've got to be kidding?
     
  13. Nov 1, 2004 #12

    kat

    User Avatar

    No Mr. Baller21, I don't want you to post krugman or any other items not related to Kerry's comments as posted above. If you'd like to post off topic items..please do so on your own thread where they will then be on topic. :rolleyes:
     
  14. Nov 1, 2004 #13

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's clear that Kerry believes/believed that missile defense is/was not the most important defense strategy. And it is my own skepticism of the Missile Defense system as well as the philosophy that makes me want argue in favor of Kerry's statements. Had the quote from Kerry been "no one could possibly be concerned because there are no Russian missiles aimed at the United States", I would be more outraged...but with only the second clause of that sentence being the actual quote and with no context other than that provided by a Kerry-hater, I'm less surprised.

    I've seen arguments for and against missile defenses of various forms. And I find myself agreeing just a little bit more with the opposers, both on technical as well as ideological grounds. The gap in the abilities to intercept short-range (scud or silkworm type) missiles and ICBMs is huge. And so far, the several tens of billions of dollars worth of funding has resulted in little that's worth writing home about.The success rate is less than 20%. The last successful interception was with a short/medium-range missile. And while I hold the view that that technical difficulties are large, the stronger opponents of missile defense claim that even if sucess rates in controlled tests get much better, the odds in a "surprise test" shrink to unviability.

    Given that the technical (and monetary) leap required to build an interceptor to defeat a new missle is an order of magnitude greater than the technical leap needed to build a missile to defeat a new interceptor, this seems to me like betting on the more vulnerable side in an arms race. Sort of like a reversal of the Cold War.

    And the technical difficulty is not my only concern. There's monetary, tactical, strategic and ideological arguments too. The strongest argument for missile defense is the lack of certainty with the alternatives.
     
  15. Nov 1, 2004 #14

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Words from both sides stating their opinions on the role of missile defense (before 9/11) :

    Bush: “Most troubling of all, the list of these countries includes some of the World’s least responsible states. Unlike the Cold War, today’s most urgent threat stems not from thousands of ballistic missiles in the Soviet hands, but from a small number of missiles in the hands of these states, states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life. They seek weapons of mass destruction to intimidate their neighbors, and to keep the United States and other responsible nations from helping allies and friends in strategic parts of the world.” [Bush, Address at the National Defense University, 5/1/01]

    Kerry: “But let me underscore that missile defense will do nothing to address what the Pentagon itself considers a much more likely and immediate threat to the American homeland from terrorists and from nonstate actors, who can quietly slip explosives into a building, unleash chemical weapons into a crowded subway, or send a crude nuclear weapon into a busy harbor.” [Kerry, Speech on Senate Floor, 5/2/01]
     
  16. Nov 1, 2004 #15
    as someone who was intimiately connected with "Star Wars" research and worked on projects involved with the programming of "smart rocks" [aka "brilliant pebbles"] in the early 90s- I can tell you that MISSLIE DEFENSE SYSTEMS ARE EXCREMENT-

    they are simply wrong-headed- you can't employ an effective missile shield- it is just a useless way of doing things-

    any missle defense system capible of making a difference would be MORE dangerous during a malfunction than the threat itself!


    there is only ONE rational stategy: non proliferation and containment-
     
  17. Nov 1, 2004 #16
    The Article is so obviously biased I don't think it deserves any consideration what so ever, if he had his sources posted i would check them out to see if he had a point, but I can't see any.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: No commander in chief
  1. Commander in Chief (Replies: 15)

  2. Hayden as CIA chief (Replies: 17)

Loading...