BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!

Subject: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: DougR
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 03:09 PM

Some time ago we had a discussion the Missile defense system Bush is going to build for the U. S. and it's allies. Most mudcatters seemed to believe that such a system would never work.

I thought I would bring this fact to the attention of those folks, if they missed the article in today's newspaper. Quoting from "The Arizona Republic."

"A Pentagon "kill vehicle" located and destroyed a dummy missile warhead in outer space above the central Pacific Ocean on Saturday evening, giving a new boost to the administration's ambitious and controversial missile defense program.

The 120-pound interceptor, launched atop a missile from Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, found the target 144 miles into outer space, and at 8:09 p.m. Arizona time pulverized it in a blinding flash of light. The target missile had been launched about 7:40p.m. from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California."

This success means that two of four flight tests of the anti-missile system conducted since October 1999 have hit their targets."

Can't be done? Still think so?

:>) DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: SINSULL
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 03:26 PM

And this launch only cost $10,000,000. Could have gone to feed hungry, house homeless, cure AIDS or cancer or MS or..., improve the environment, research non-fossil fuels, update crumbling schools, fight drug addiction and/or drug trade, send a few kids to college, etc...
Am I the only one who thinks thatonce that first missile is launched, there won't be much left of the world worth living in, whether it hits the US or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Gareth
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 03:35 PM

Doug R

For that sort of money you could bribe most antisocial governments not to fire the missile anyway - Though I suspect when, and when not if, a terrorist weapon of mass destruction is released it will be deliverd as an anonomous container on a ship or truck.

Gareth.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Linda Kelly
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 03:39 PM

One missile does not a defence system make.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: mg
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 03:49 PM

trust me. If a missle comes your way, you are going to wish you had kept the crumbling school and got the missle defense instead. It is not an either-or situation. We need all of the above. We spend huge amounts on social pathology. We should get some prisoners rehabbing schools, growing food etc. Get the schools to turn out people capable of earning at least a modest salary, with some salable skills so they have no excuse to turn to crime. Send a strong message to young women that having children without benefit of marriage is hurting the children, and causing society to take care of able-bodied people who should have deferred reproduction, and at the same time short-changed those who could not help the circumstances they were in. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: toadfrog
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 03:56 PM

Y'know, I hate to sound cynical, but my feeling is, that "bull's eye" belongs in a BS thread. Governments who want a particular result from a "test" know how to get them. The exception - the Billy Mitchell story - proves the rule. The reasons for building SDI have every thing to do with domestic politics and nothing whatsoever to do with whether it works, or whether it protects the country. It's pork. It appeals to the ultra-nationalist bubbah ("Regan Democrat") vote. It helps impoverish the government, and so "keeps government off our backs." Which means, in good English it helps destroy any social program which might help poor or working people. That satisfies both wings of the Republican Party. It satisfies the country-club wing, because a an insecure labor force is thought to be a docile labor force. And it satisfies the Religious Right, because it puts poor people at the mercy of charity, and so forces them into church. In other words, having "defeated Communism" the Republicans have set out to prove Karl Marx was right.

But the greatest problem with the SDI program is that it greatly increases the danger of war. This is so because in order to whip up a threat that will justify the program, the United States must find ways to make enemies, or in any case refrain from easing tensions with the "rogue states." On top of that, there is also the serious risk that some nut may come to power who imagines that the Star Wars Program makes it safe to throw his weight around, and so abuses his power that the U.S. becomes the Rogue State.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: kendall
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 04:02 PM

Doug, the real problem, as I see it, is that if we do develop an anti missle system, it will scare the hell out of all those countries that dont trust us! We will be invulnerable! We can do as we please, including invasion of any country that has what we want. Do you think Russia is going to stand by and watch us become invulnerable? Hell NO! they will hit us before it is in place. This is going to really destablize the balance of terror. It is not protection..it is madness!

Foreign Mudcatters, Let's hear from you.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: The Walrus
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 04:04 PM

DougR, P;ease note that I do not intend to insult anyone or start anykind of flame war.

There are two factors to be remembered before claiming that any system works

1) Repeatablility - Can you do it again (and again) with the same kit.

2) Reproducability - Can another operator, using the same technique reproduce your results.

From your post, at present there is, at best, a 50% sucess rate. Please wait until they can do it a few times without missing before declaring the whole thing a success (It could just be a luck).

Regards

Walrus

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Peter T.
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 04:08 PM

It is hard to dignify this with the term pathetic. The objection has never been that it wouldn't work, it is that it is a stupid, insane, strategy. Americans have pissed away the chance to eliminate whole swathes of the nuclear enterprise in favour of this nonsense. From 1991 to 2001 we had the best chance to ratchet down the nuclear enterprise -- no enemies, total American superiority, and the whole thing was lost. This is driven by shortsightedness, paranoia and arms industries in every state of the U.S. You are creating the very enemies you are trying to protect yourself against. It is complete insanity. Generations yet unborn will curse the ground this American government and the last walks upon for not making the effort to be leaders in reaching towards partial global disarmament. And now the government wants to break the nuclear test ban treaty. It is completely on the loose, totally irresponsible.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Linda Kelly
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 04:10 PM

Actually Mary I would have said that the world is more likely to be destabilized through the efforts of those not in power and wishing they were, or individuals who have fundemental beliefs and are prepared to die for them. No missile system is likely to protect us from that.Hell, why build one at all - just allow your enemy to host the next Olympics and that will see them off!

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Gareth
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 04:29 PM

Actually for missile Defence System read Maginot Line.

With the price of second hand merchant shipping these days why should Korea/Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran (insert your favourite prejudice)not buy a container ship and sail her into The Golden Gate/The Narrows/London River/Sydney Harbour and bang.

Just think, no R & D costs on rockets and guidence systems, no need to make the warhead small, light and capable of tolerating the stresses of aceleration and reentry. You can pack it with enough dirty elements such as cobalt to sterilise the area for centuaries.

I suspect the technology is within the competance of any physisist and engineer.

Thats what frightens me.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: DougR
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 04:44 PM

Thank you for your responses. Interesting. Sins: Your second paragraph presents an excellent argument for developing SDI.

Gareth: Saddam has plenty of money. So does Iran. They would rather see this country reduced to rubble than participate in a pay-off, I believe. I trust, by the way, that you have shared your inside information on how a terrorist will (yes will IMO) deliver the first blow.

Ickle Dorrit: Nope, but it's a start, isn't it? The U. S. has never had any problems finding ways to make enemies. We are probably the most hated country in the world as it is.

Kendall: Be patient. If we haven't heard from our fellow mudcatters from foreign countries, I'm confident we will. Anyway, when the system is in place and working, we won't tell anybody.

The Walrus: (1) That's why they do tests. (2) They can if they can afford it. Who would that be? As to 50% success rate, again, that's why they are doing tests.

Peter T: "the objection has never been it won't work." Surely you jest.

**BG**

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 06:01 PM

It's one thing shooting down a missile when you know when it's coming and what direction it's coming from. It might not be quite that easy if you don't know

1) If it's coming
2) When it's coming; or
3) What direction it's coming from

A more realistic test would be if

1) The aggressor missile could be fired any time within, say, a six-month period, and

2) The defenders don't know which direction it's coming from.

Could the defenders spot the incoming missile in time, or would they be so bored waiting that they miss it? Do it with computers? Yeah, sure. Could they then get the data on its trajectory quickly enough to program the defending missile? How fast can the defending missile be programmed (each time the programming would have to be ad hoc)? Could they then launch the defending missile in time? What then are the chances of nailing the incoming missile? Considering the speed of ICMBs, that's crucial. Even more crucial with short-range missiles. How about a short-range missile fired from a submarine ten miles off the coast at a city, say, thirty miles inland? Or a cruise missile? Will this system take MIRVs into consideration?

And that's only one mode of attack -- a method perhaps made obsolete by low-tech delivery systems such as the aforementioned freighter or the bomb in a truck. Not to mention biological agents. Now a nightmare for you.

And who's going to launch this attack? China or Russia perhaps, if they become sufficiently frightened of or pissed off at the U.S? And using missiles would show an amazing lack of imagination. Iraq? Cuba? Actually, I would be more apprehensive about some of those really really pure folks who periodically march through the streets of Couer d' Alene, Idaho in their pretty white sheets and neatly pressed storm-trooper uniforms. I don't think they have missiles, but they do have other methods.

There are think-tanks all over the world whose business is to think of the unthinkable, and not all of them are as stupid as some of ours appear to be. Missile systems are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, and very unreliable. There are much more efficient ways of committing mass murder that are quite inexpensive. If I can think them up, I'm sure there are folks out there who can too -- and ones far more diabolical than I can dream up.

And this is considering only the technical side of it. The political ramifications are a real can of worms. The reaction of other nations. The effect on our own economy. It occurs to me that there might be an element of Wag the Dog about this whole missile defense thing. Think about it.

Needless to say, I don't consider the resurrection of Star Wars to be the brightest idea that George W has come up with.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Gareth
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 06:19 PM

Doug R

Try "The 4th Fourth Protocol" by Fredrick Forsyth or Koestlers "Brighter than the Noon Day Sun", this was made into a film, come to think about it, as films go on non missile nuclear attacks try "True Lies".

I have little doubt that Iran/Iraq Etc would flatten the US of A (or the UK) if given a chance - not that I agree with that fundamentalist philosophy. But following your logic, should not the US of A follow the Carwen James school of thought and get their retaliation in first. Or is the thought of Radio Active Oil sufficient to calm (control) the super hawks ambition.

No let Uncle Sam spend his money how he likes, but don't imperil what world stability there is to divert attention from the Republicans internal economic problems.

Incidently do you know what the Maginot line was ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 06:22 PM

And when the incoming missile is a MIRV and splits into, oh, say, 100 mini-missiles all going in different directions, will you be able to shoot all 100 of them down? When there are, oh, say, 1000 of these 100-missile delivery rockets incoming?

But that's not the real issue. As has been pointed out, the real issue is the destabilization of the world balance of power. We've had a delightfully nuclear-free world (at least the major cities thereof) since Nagasaki. And with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the "nuclear clock" seemed to run down for good.

Why must Shrub incite our friends and enemies at this point? Is it that, without a Cold War, he doesn't know how to run foreign policy?

We should be working to build ties with other nations, not destroy them.

But what do I know? I voted with the majority in 2000.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Gareth
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 06:28 PM

mousethief

Does that mean you did not vote ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 06:33 PM

Sorry. Plurality?

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Gareth
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 06:39 PM

Mousethief

Actually, I heard there was going to be a rerun of Watergate.

Someone broke into Jeb Bush's office and stole the election results for 2004

As they say in Ulster

"Vote Republican, Vote frequently"

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 06:41 PM

Funny, that's what they say on our Supreme Court.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: DougR
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 07:07 PM

You guys are riot (Alex and Gareth)! :>)

I'm sure there are folks much smarter than I who are considering the exact problems you have posed. Who knows, they may be exploring even more sophisticated probabilities that are not even advanced here! I'll leave it up to those guys to figure out how to make it work.

But to leave you with an encouraging thought ...the system, so far, has only been able to shoot down two out of the four missils shot at. Maybe the next attempt will fail!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: kendall
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 07:15 PM

Doug, listen, IT AINT EVER GOING TO GET PUT IN PLACE!! President Putin of Russia is very nervous, the head of China is furious, these people hate us! and with damn good reason! I fear that this smirking doofus in the White House is going to start an arms race that will make the last one look like a video game.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: DougR
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 07:50 PM

Nah it won't Kendall! They can't afford it! Rest easy, my friend. Bush is on the right track.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: DougR
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 07:52 PM

Nah it won't do that Kendall! They can't afford it! If they attempted it they would have to borrow the money from the U. S. Rest easy, my friend. Bush is on the right track.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 08:11 PM

The actual functioning of the system is a matter of no consequence. Smirking Doofus & Co. have stated they intend to proceed whether it works or not.Clear case of not allowing them pesky facts to get in the way.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 09:31 PM

Proceeding whether it works or not is a pretty good indication that their PURPOSE is not to create a defense system. That was the song-and-dance they used to sell it to the public.

Hard to know what their purpose is, but if I had to wager a guess, the words "corporate welfare" do spring to mind...

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: DougR
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 09:42 PM

Alex, you are accepting what Greg reports as fact? I saw Secretary of Defense Rumsfield testifying before a Congressional Committee recently and he debunked that theory. His reply to that question was, "What would be the point of that?"

MT, I believe in a recent post you mentioned that you work for Boeing. Does Boeing do any defense work? If so, what would be the effect on Boeing, and it's employees, if all defense work with your company ceased tomorrow? "Corporate welfare?" I would think those who work for large corporations would be damn glad there is such a thing, to say nothing of the shareholders of the company stock. The whole Seattle area benefits from such "corporate welfare."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 09:57 PM

Actually the seattle area boeing plants do almost no defense work. Boeing saw its share in the federal tit dry up almost completely through the 80s and 90s. It was only after they bought North American and Mcdonnel/Douglas that Boeing's share of defense work moved upwards, as it were. And nearly all that work is done elsewhere.

This is more of that "we should worship Big Business because they create so many jobs" nonsense.

Most jobs in this country are created by SMALL business, and virtually all of these without federal dolers [sic].

Boeing is just as happy to axe jobs when it makes the shareholders happy. It is not in the business of making jobs, but of making money for stockholders.

So no alligator tears, if you please, for corporate welfare. Before the merger Boeing made 90% of its income from the private sector (and the rest was mostly space not defense). Those of us in "heritage Boeing" would be just as happy to see the other half go away again.

Listen to me, I'm starting to sound like a libertarian.

Shoot me quick!

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: kendall
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 10:33 PM

That moron scares me, and, so do ostriches.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Jul 01 - 12:48 AM

As someone else here said in different words, If a rogue state wanted to attack the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction then a ship would be the best delivery vehicle. All George is doing is angering all of the countries with real nukes. Also, if they are planning to use these things for real protection then they are going to have to deploy a whole bunch of them. Remember their success rate so far is 50%, when the know when and from where the missle will be launched.

The security interests of the US would be better served by pouring these billions into removing poverty and ignorance: cheaper, cleaner energy, reclaimation of desert and education. Too bad future generations didn't contribute to Mr. Bush's election.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: DougR
Date: 16 Jul 01 - 01:04 AM

Ah yes, RobDale, but doesn't one have to stetch a bit to equate spending billions on removing poverty and ignorance and somebody shooting missils at us?

I would bet that somebody in the Pentagon, or some other appropriate agency of the federal government, has thought of exactly the same possibilities for attack as have been suggested here. Perhaps they will be on the watch for those terriorist techniques as part of the overall SDI.

And Kendall, I assume you were talking about our president when you referred to the "moron." Did you note that Bush's approval rating improved 5 points over the previous poll taken by the N.Y.Times and CBS? Probably not. The increase was not touted much. The decrease in the previous poll garnered a great deal of press attention, though. I wonder why?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Jul 01 - 10:45 AM

as I think I posted once before somewhere,

Does the phrase "Maginot Line" ring any bells?

And I can almost hear General Custer yelling, "I got one, boys...keep firing!"

If we have enemies who really decide to 'get' us, they won't NEED missles...little a-bombs in U-Haul trucks will do fine. Peter T & Alex said it it just fine, this is BOTH "pork" and useless.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: kendall
Date: 16 Jul 01 - 11:09 AM

Ronald Ray gun had a high approval rating too, all that says is that there are many morons out there. Not you Doug, you are an ostrich!

Do you remember when John Wayne trusted his government when it said the canyon where he made his last movie was safe from radiation? He believed them, made the film. threatened to beat up someone who did not trust the government, and a few years later, every one of the people who worked in that canyon died of cancer.

Do you know what the the people within 200 miles of White Sands NM were told when they said "What the hell was that"? They were told that an ammo dump blew up! Do I trust my government? What do you think?

Doug, better come up and do some fly fishing before the moron gets us all killed.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Peter T.
Date: 16 Jul 01 - 11:36 AM

The truth is that it is a strategy of despair, and that is what makes one despair. To have given up on the tough struggle for hope in favour of some techno solution, and so obviously. One hates to give up on the dream of the United States -- even a foreigner can dream of the hope that the United States represents. It is very hard to have to do that.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: A Wandering Minstrel
Date: 16 Jul 01 - 12:13 PM

you remark but doesn't one have to stretch a bit to equate spending billions on removing poverty and ignorance and somebody shooting missiles at us?

OK the stretch is this .... every dollar you don't spend on dealing death is a dollar you can spend on improving life.

You wanted feedback from other countries? here is some... This is a policy to antagonizes your enemies and your allies. Nothing good will come of it. Your government appears to be pursuing it despite all good advice to the contrary, because it will provide "jobs for the boys". Any other explanation/justification is disingenuous and partisan

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Jul 01 - 12:20 PM

DougR R you just trying to stir things up or do you believe what you are saying?

There is NO WAY, this thing is going to be cost effective. Even if they build and man enough of these things to give real protection, the bad guys will just find another way to deliver their bombs. The Russians, Chinese, French, and English can deliver their weapons with cruise missiles. The others can use boats or commercial planes. This plan is nothing but pork barrelling.

That being said, if you are going to spend billions on R&D Isn't it better to spend it on technologies which reduce internation tensions rather than increase them?

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: DougR
Date: 16 Jul 01 - 12:50 PM

Nope, RobDale, I'm not just stirring the pot. The President, any President, takes an oath to preserve and protect the United States of America when he takes the oath of office. That's what the Bush administration is attempting to do. Plain and simple.

Obviously, a lot of folks don't appreciate their efforts.

Bill D. Yep, I know where the Maginot Line is and how ineffective it was in WWII.

I think the cooperation pact being sealed now between China and Russia in Moscow is far more likely to recreate Cold War atmosphere, than one little old missile seeking out and destroying a dummy war head.

Kendall, that sounds like a fun thing to do. Maybe we could make some music too! As to your remark about my being an Ostrich, maybe I like the "Boll Weavil" am just "looking for a home ..."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: JenEllen
Date: 16 Jul 01 - 01:19 PM

These kinds of discussions always alternately incense and sadden me. Just as a 2cents, I offer this thought for you. When dinner parties (inevitably) turn to this, I set up this little 'party game'. You'd be amazed at the results.

You are a good, tax-paying American. When it's time to give the devil his due, you owe UncleSam the tidy sum of $100. However, in Jenny's Luverly Democracy, you actually get a definitive say in where your money goes. Knowing what you know about your immediate community and the world at large, and knowing your friends, families, children, and your own needs, split your money. How much would you pay for:

Education: Computers for schools, salaries for teachers, updated textbooks, larger classrooms, federal funding for college tuition, worker re-training, etc.

Infrastructure: The potholes on main street to hub airports, police and fire, etc

Community: welfare, job corps programs, animal control, etc.

Humans: medical care, parenting education and family planning, etc.

Environment: Cleaner air/water, alternative fuels, park preservation, wildlife preservation, adequate water for urban areas/farming communities, etc

Arts: federal programs both to teach and to sponsor

Government: salaries for politicians, 'business expenses', etc.

Humanitarian: peace-corps, docs without boarders, helping other countries/communities by sharing your wealth, experience, and knowledge.

Military: Army, Navy, AirForce, Marines, CoastGuard, etc. (and as to not be unfair to Doug, keep in mind you are protecting all of the above listed things that you have spent your hard earned money on)

Now tally it and share. It is amazing to see how different the common person's perception of a need is from the actual tallies. Most folks, even my die-hard military buddies, if given the option of spending their money on a billionth interest in a stealth jet, or the education of their children, will pick people first.

As for the latest military topic? Well, 'some of the time' does not exactly scream success to me. Nowhere else in the US would a person tolerate, however remotely, 'sometimes'. We're gonna sell you this car, now, half the time, when you crank her up, she ain't gonna start...but when she runs, she runs. A fat lot of good that thought will do you when your ass is stranded on the 405. I wonder when, exactly, people became so blinded.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 16 Jul 01 - 01:33 PM

I think Peter T was on target (speaking of bull'seyes) when he said we had an opportunity to gain worldwide control over nuclear proliferation due to collapse of the Russian Empire. The lack of foresight in this area has been pathetic. I don't think it's too late at this time, but I don't see anything happening until Bush is out of office. Here's the main problem : controlling nuclear proliferation is not a money maker. Star Wars Systems are. I don't think by any means that the profit motive is the only one. I think Bush believes in this, as do many others. But it is usually much easier to believe in something that also earns you money.

Personally, I think that the SDI is technology that doesn't confront the political reality of today. It is a Reagan-era legacy that primarily depends on an adversary who operates as we do, with an arsenal of silo-based ICBMs. Those above who said that the danger may be more in the nature of a terrorist attack, a boat or just a suitcase, had it right.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: The Walrus
Date: 16 Jul 01 - 05:39 PM

DougR,

>>There are two factors to be remembered before claiming >>that any system works

>>1) Repeatablility - Can you do it again (and again) >>with the same kit.

>(1) That's why they do tests.

Accepted, but I maintain that with the success rate achived so far, it is a little early to declare the results a sucess.

>>2) Reproducability - Can another operator, using the >>same technique reproduce your results.

>(2) They can if they can afford it. Who would that be?

Well, unless you plan to have all your defensive missiles in one place and controlled from one unit, The USA! It's no good it the system works with the kit delivered to, say, Alaska if the system in Florida can't achieve the same result (and remember, despite the budget, any government system is still a collection of economies and lowest bids).

>As to 50% success rate, again, that's why they are doing >tests

Fine, but it's still not the triumph it's being trumpeted as.

As to the claims that it won't work, I'm afraid I have to agree with the majority here, it may work technically, but as a political weapon its about as useful as a viking helmet with the horns on the inside, it does more harm than good.

Regards

Walrus

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: GUEST,RobDale
Date: 16 Jul 01 - 05:54 PM

Geese DougR,

The President is not fulfilling any oath to protect the country by doing this. It can't work! It is only marginally effective against certian types of weapons delivery systems. He will be spending billions just to encourage China, Russia et al to build cruise missiles instead of ballistic missiles. He is also Pi**ing them off and forcing them to ally against the U.S.A.

Congrats on the Bulls-eye and buy defense stocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Gareth
Date: 16 Jul 01 - 07:32 PM

What is militarily and engineeringly possible may :-

Be Political unfeasable,

Of no practicle use.

Doug R - You still have not answered the point on the Maginot Line - which was "high tec" at the time it was built. Or what happened to the Dutch and Belgium equivalents.

A standard 40 foot ISO shipping container has a pay load of 30 long tons.

Can a mercantile nation such as the USA quarantine (well off shore) and search every container ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: DougR
Date: 16 Jul 01 - 07:55 PM

Of course it was high tech when it was built, Gareth, and had a war occured a year or so after it was built, perhaps it would have been effective, who knows?

Your kinda adding fuel to Bush's argument that the disarmament treaties we have now are obsolete! That's what he feels the ABM treaty is. Other folks think it's right up to date (just as those folks did when the Maginot was built I suppose).

Guest RobDale, the Russians and the Chinese are going to dash out and build a bunch of missiles! They havent' got the capital!

Okay Walrus, you see a half empty glass, where I see a half filled one!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: kendall
Date: 16 Jul 01 - 10:41 PM

So, "They cant afford it" eh? Remember when Germany was on her knees after ww 1? How could they afford to build up the huge war machine which they came up with in only 15 years or so? If they believe that their very existence depends on a missle attack system, they will afford it, they cant afford NOT to.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: DougR
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 01:49 AM

Mebbe so, Kendall, but the last time I tried to borrow money from a Russian, he pled poverty!

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Les from Hull
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 06:52 AM

Any defence system encourages potential enemies to find a way around that system. So the very expensive Maginot Line was outflanked by the Germans, who also attacked the Belgian forts at Eben Emal (sp?) with glider troops. There are enough alternatives already mentioned here, cruise missiles fired from submarines, clandestine attack with nuclear or biological devices. Sabotage is another possibility. A mass attack by ICBMs with many decoys will very likely swamp any anti-missile defence. So you Americans have to ask yourselves, what is it all for?

It's about time that politicians stopped taking everything that their military and big business partners say as gospel. There's another agenda here. These people want money. The politicians control the money. 'Nuff said?

Les

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: GeorgeH
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 07:33 AM

Doug R

Anyone who says "Sadam has plenty of money" is clearly talking out of the wrong orrifice.

Not that it matters . . he has enough to deliver a nuclear strike at some point in the forseeable future. And if he strikes anywhere it would be at Israel rather than the US. Far more kudos . . .

There is simply no logical basis for incurring the cost of this system to guard against a virtually non-existent risk. Except, of course, that it provides the US with the means of continuing their "subsidy through inflated budgets" subsidy of their aerospace industry - a neat way of circumventing their "philosophical opposition" to state support for industry.

G.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: kendall
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 09:33 AM

Doug, are you a Taurus?

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Ringer
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 10:11 AM

I don't get it. If development of a purely defensive missile system stirs up so much opposition amongst both foes and allies, it suggests to me that those foes and allies have an agenda which includes offence. Otherwise, why the fuss? And if they are inclined to offence, are not the US military planners being wise? Or am I just being naïf?

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 10:49 AM

Hi Eagle.

The reason China and Russia are upset is because of MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. This was the Idea of the US and basically states that even if you blow the hell out of me, I can kill you in return so both sides are deterred from striking first. They are worried that if the United States has a missle sheild, they will be able to use Nuclear weapons without fear of retaliation. As we have pointed out, the SDI system is both overkill and inadequate for defense against so called rogue states. China and Russia fear that the missile defense is to allow the US to attack them with impunity. I think their fear may be justified. If a terrorist country wants to Nuke the US they will send the bomb by ship.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: DougR
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 11:46 AM

Arghhhhhhhh! RobDale, the United States is not an aggressor nation! We are not going to attack anyone unless we are attacked first!

Les: I suppose your theory is nations should develop no defense at all. I'm glad you weren't advising Churchill while the Battle of Britain was going on in the early 40's. :>)

No, Kendall my friend, I'm am not a Taurus! I am a Pisces, which might explain why I am constanstly swimming upsteam against you Liberal Bozos! **BG**

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: kendall
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 12:21 PM

Not going to attack anyone? did we not attack Spain? did we not invade Canada? Did we not invade Granada? Did we not create the country of Panama to have our own way in building the canal? Did we not invade Haiti?, the Dominican republic? Did we not land troops in Russia right after WW 1 with the intent to overthrow their government? Doug, people like you and I are not agressive, BUT, our govenment sure as hell has been , and that is what scares our enemies and even our friends. (ps, you must have Taurus rising!)

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 12:35 PM

DougR, I'm probably as conservative as you. My problem with SDI is that it can't work. It's only net result is to scare the SH** out of people with nuclear weapons. Scared people do stupid things. It's called destablization. It's just stupid Doug, Stupid.

DougR Look at it from the other country's point of view. Russian and Chinese generals look at the U.S. and see the ONLY county EVER to have used Nuclear weapons in anger.

There has got to be a better way.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 12:39 PM

Did we not use nuclear weapons against Japan the minute we had one to use?

And after we levelled Hiroshima, did we not use the second nuclear weapon dropped on Nagasaki, "just so we'd know" how the second device worked compared to the first?

Do we not remain the ONLY country in the world ever to have used our nuclear weapons?

Not an aggressor?

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: DougR
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 12:56 PM

Bottom to top: GUEST (can't imagine why you are ashamed to identify yourself but ...) And they STOPPED WWII! They saved perhaps a million or more lives had the Allies been forced to invade Japan. Whadda you think? The U. S. was just gonna leave Japan alone after the war in Europe was over?

RobDale: you may rue the day that you ever identified yourself as a conservative on THIS forum! :>)

Kendell: Unfortunately I have not experienced anything rising for far too long!

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 01:04 PM

I may be conservative.

PAY OFF THE DEBT G.W.B!!!!!!!!!!

But I don't enjoy it as much as you seem to. :<)

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 01:32 PM

I think that the use of nuclear weapons is different than any other form of aggression, because of the results of their only previous use against Japan. We now understand the wide ranging impact. I agree with Doug that the US would never launch an attack. However, the nuclear card was played at least once by the US to force a Russian retreat from Northern Iran shortly after the end of World War 2, to the best of my memory. The potential for Nuclear Blackmail has not existed since the USSR got the Bomb in the early 50s, but with SDI their is certainly potential for return to those tactics.

One thing is certain though. The developed nations of the Earth are far more commercially entwined than they were during the Cold War. Even China, that rogue Superpower, is more interested in the US as a market for their products than as an adversary. I'm convinced that we have much more to fear from the "have nots" of the world, the countries dominated by monomaniac dictators or religious fanatics, than from any other nation who is benefitting from the "global economy". And what should our approach be to the "have nots"? We should combine forces with other developed nations to force compliance to nuclear non-proliferation controls, while emphasizing democratic government and basic human rights. Sound too much like "One World Government"? Perhaps. But the world seems to be drifting in that direction under its own momentum. Why not attempt a consensus on a goal, and not just a direction?

SDI accomplishes nothing except to emphasize a separateness for the US from the surrounding world, a separateness that is fast slipping away since the Cold War's end.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 02:25 PM

I'll confess that I have mixed feelings about this. Like Doug, I feel that the President's number one job is to ensure that there is an adequate national defense, and that it is a good idea to advance the technology of defense whenever we have the opportunity to do so. This isn't a question that can be answered with a party game about "where would you spend your dollar?"; it's an important priority, notwithstanding the fact that we would all prefer to spend money on pretty, happy things rather than on the implements of war. I also agree that the 1972 ABM treaty is outdated, and that our military needs to move beyond the age-old trap of "fighting the last war" and update both its weaponry and its strategic thinking.

The arguments against missile defense seem curious to me. On the one hand, it'll never work; on the other hand, it will allow us to scrap the old "mutual assured destruction" doctrine and engage in nuclear blackmail. I don't see how both can be true. If the Russians and Chinese are really scared about this, it must be because they are more confident in the prospects of success than many of our domestic critics are.

No, a single successful test (under tightly controlled conditions) does not equate to a successful defense system; Doug's initial posting was more confident than the circumstances warranted. By the same token, we should not assume that a new technology is doomed to failure just because we haven't completed the development process. We also should not be so naive as to think that anyone could rely on this as their only line of defense against nuclear weapons -- and to be fair, I don't think the President, Secretary Rumsfeld, Doug, or anyone else ever suggested that we should.

However, I do think that both Reagan and Bush fell into the same trap of pushing for public acceptance of a missile defense program before any of us had much to go on; contrast that with the secrecy of the Manhattan Project, which we did not announce until we had accomplished our goal. They also neglected the essential diplomatic work that should have preceded their policy announcements, thereby hardening international opposition before they had anything to counter it with. Reagan put the cart before the horse when he announced his SDI intentions in the mid-1980's, and Bush has repeated his mistake.

No clear position on this one, but I just wanted to make a few points that I thought should be considered. I'll continue to follow this discussion with interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Gareth
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 02:52 PM

Ahh ! It's that time of the day when us european residents come on line.

Les - Nice one, to use that hackned phrase, "If we don't remember and learn from history we are doome to repeat it"

A point to ponder, did the deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, horrible though they were, save more loss of life in the long run ? What ever the arguments pro and con on the willingness of the Japanese Government to surrender the can be little doubt that this provided the opportunity to do so.

My late father, who had fought from Normandy to Keil, was not overpleased with the news that the battalion was to requip, and was earmarked for the far east in May 1945.

Do any Military Historians have any access to the expected casualties expected on the Rangoon and Japanese Home Island landings ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: DougR
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 04:17 PM

Gareth, I have heard the figure throught the years of two million. I could not support that figure if challenged though.

Whistle Stop, Losesome E.J.: Good posts.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: The Walrus
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 04:39 PM

The problem with "Agressive America" is not whether it's true or not, it's whether it is *Perceived* to be true. The Russians and Chinese have has 80+ & 50+ years of propaganda respectively, in the eyes of many of them , America IS aggressive because that is what they've grown up being taught and the propaganda has been spread (Speak softly and carry a big stick? Too many cannot hear the words but DO see the stick). The problem is that most Americans KNOW that their government would never use offensive nuclear weapons unless attacked, most westerners are fairly certain of that (unless the US electorate has a collective brain-storm and some of the real "loopies" get in), but the rest of the world can only *hope* it will never happen. This SDI must seem to many like building a fortress from which to attack and they fear being the target.

Is this making sense?

Walrus

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 04:50 PM

Exactly Walrus!

The fact that Americans justify the use of the WWII bombs is what makes the whole situation so scary. I personally would not want to see ANY country develop their defences to the point that they believed they could drop The Bomb with impunity. And even though I don't think they'll ever reach that point, I'd rather they didn't try.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: DougR
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 06:41 PM

But! The purpose of SDI is not to make us safe so that we can dump bombs on somebody else! Also, keep in mind that Bush has plans to share the SDI with our allies! (of course since the system will NEVER work, that offer has little value, I guess)

I do see Walrus and RobDale's points though. The U.S. has been painted as the bad guy for years by many foreign governments so that their citizens fear us. Too bad. Actually, we are not fighters; we are lovers!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: kendall
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 06:57 PM

I've said my piece, and we still have over three years of resident Bush to go. Now, Doug, if you want to be a lover once more, try YOHIMBE or DAMIANA. I read somewhere that they are powerful libido stimulants!

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Gareth
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 07:26 PM

Perhaps, Doug R. you might wish to consider why, the US of A is so unpopular - Its not the fear of the Reverand Nemiah Scudder, though, if this goes on, it might be.

Its not the thought of the Grand Senate, and election manipulation, though that might be our future history.

Its not that the US of A will boldly go, and we will find the Enterprise in our back yard.

Its more a perception that might is taken as right. And consensus is subordinate to, what President Ike called the the industrial/military consortiam.

My father fought from Normangy to Kiel (mentioned previously) In a USA built M10 (TD to you). His supplies were brought up by General Motors trucks. When supplies of fresh food could not be looted (reqisitioned) the diet included Spam, and K rations. He had an imense respect for the capabilities, courage, and the abilities to learn of the USA. (though little respect for thier target recognition or fire discipline - too many instances of friendly fire)

No don't think that we are vicerial anti-yank. There is a point that even in the U.K. the forign policy of the states is seen as bullying - The World Trade Agreement, the disputes over alledged "subsidies" to Airbus, even the right of the European Union to form it's own defence capability, are suboridinate to American business intersts.

Question to think about Doug.

If Fidel C had had support, post revolution, of the US of A in reforming and rebuilding Cuba, would he have ended up in the arms of the Bear ?

Or was policy dictated by the losses of Bacadi, Sugar interests, and mafia gambling saloons.

Just a thought - I'd be interested to hear your views, possibly over a pint in the Mudcat Bar, or Cardiff if you visit the UK.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: thosp
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 07:33 PM

blueclicketything
Kendall - you left out cuba

peace (Y) thosp

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 07:45 PM

Just an aside...this is a very interesting discussion, with well thought-out points of view all around. Very enjoyable.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: DougR
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 07:46 PM

Kendall, I'll think on your suggestion, but first there is the problem of finding a willing, interested er ...you know. And she wouldn't even have to be a Conservative!

Gareth, I think your idea of a drink at the Mudcat Pub or anyplace else is a great idea! On the question of Fidel, as I recall, Fidel made his political leanings known well before the end of the revolution, and he leaned more toward the Bear than the Eagle. Had he not been committed to the Communist philosophy, when Russia pulled it's support he could have embraced a free capitalist philosophy and Uncle Sam probably would have come running with bags of money. American corporate interests would have returned also, and the citizens of Cuba would be enjoying a better life. Just my opinion, of course.

If I ever find myself in Cardiff, you owe me a Guinness!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 07:51 PM

DougR the Russians and Chinese have pretty good reason to fear. USA did let the Nuclear genie out of the bottle. Reagan did make the evil empire speech. USA held a grudge against China for many years until market forces opened it up. USA still holds a grudge against Cuba. USA business have scary power worldwide. Heaven help Canada if Bill Gates decides to take up moose hunting ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: DougR
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 08:10 PM

I can't swear it's true, but I did hear that Bill bought a Army surplus M1, Rob.

Yep, we've already been through the genie bit, and as I stated, it is thought to have saved far more lives than it killed. We were at war with Japan, remember. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jul 01 - 09:14 PM

it's just a matter of fact...large entities(human OR political) with resources eventually get perceived as threatening....and often are. It is very hard to be big and rich and powerful and not USE that power...

the USA does about as well as anyone who has clout and 'mostly' uses it reasonably....but ANY time someone big does something, there are those who attribute evil intent.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 18 Jul 01 - 07:12 AM

Doug, you don't seem to have addressed Gareth's first point at all. On that specific point, You might be interested to check out how many containers arrive in the US from, say, China, in, say, an hour. However rich America is, and whatever the impoverishment in which it might seek to confine other nations, America will never make itself a safe place to be, simply by force of arms.

Anyway, is it not the case that National Missile Defence would be dependent on UK-based radar input? Blair may be a poodle, and he may have a parliamentary majority of millions, but he still managed to get his government defeated in the House of Commons the other day. So just suppose the UK won't play this particular game with Bush. Can you think of any other friendly nations that might come to his rescue?

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: GeorgeH
Date: 18 Jul 01 - 07:29 AM

The US Government has probably caused more unnecssaray and avoidable deaths than any "tyrant" regime currently on its hate list.

That statement is not in any way "anti-Yank" - it's anti US Government, and more generally anti the mindset which puts self interest above a respect for the dignity and rights of each and every human being, regardless of where they happen to be domiciled. It's equally anti the current (New Labour) and immediate past (Conservative) UK governments.

And I'm sorry, Bill D, but on balance I'd say the US uses her power unreasonably more often than reasonably. Its criteria for the use of the power are not "reasonableness" or "justice" but (perceived) self-interest and whether they can get away with it without causing opposition at home. Here in the UK we have much less power, but its use is at least equally unreasonable. (I wrote this thinking of military power, but it's even more true of commercial power.)

G.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: kendall
Date: 18 Jul 01 - 08:23 AM

Yes, I did leave out Cuba. Who the hell does Castro think he is anyway? We stole Cuba fair and square back in our Imperial days. Also, according to the history I know, Castro came here looking for help and Richard Nixon met with him, then wrote a memo to Ike saying that Castro is a communist, and must be eliminated!

I also left out Viet Nam. Ho Chi Mihn came to us after ww2 for help to get the French out of his country. We refused, so, they got the help they deserved from the communists.

And, of course, our history with the natives in our own country is nothing short of obscene.

Doug, you would stand a better chance with a liberal woman! what do you think "Liberal" means?

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 18 Jul 01 - 08:37 AM

The most powerful nation on earth will always be perceived as evil by those with less power. Currently the USA is the most powerful nation on earth, hence we come in for a lot of criticism. We aren't perfect, and have made our share of mistakes, but I can't think of any other "superpower" nation in history that has handled this kind of power more responsibly. The Romans? The USSR? The Chinese? Perfection is beyond our reach in such a large and complex world, but can anyone give me an example of another superpower that has shown more "respect for the dignity and rights of each and every human being" than the United States?

It is unrealistic to think that nuclear weapons would never have been developed if not for the USA. And it is unrealistic to think that, once developed, they would not have been used if not for the USA. It was inevitable that nuclear weapons were going to be invented and used, and it is the world's great fortune that they have only been used twice. As precarious as the current world situation is, I shudder to think of what the outcome might have been if another nation had developed these weapons before the USA did.

We can debate the wisdom of our actions at the end of WWII from now until the end of time, but once all the points have been made, it's really kind of a meaningless exercise. The facts are: (1) we were on the "right" side of the most desperate war the world has ever seen, against an incredibly cruel, fanatical, and still powerful enemy; (2) we were facing the prospect of sustaining AND inflicting enormous casualties (military and civilian) in the pending invasion of the Japanese home islands; (3) most historians agree that the Japanese militarists would have blocked any move towards settlement without an overwhelming shock such as was provided by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings; and (3) under the circumstances, we exercised a good deal more restraint than any of the other major parties to that war would likely have shown in those circumstances. I understand that we were the victors in that war, and the victors traditionally get to put their own spin on the historical record, but does anyone seriously think that we engaged in anything approaching the systematic cruelty that the Japanese or Germans (or the USSR, for that matter) showed in their brutal occupations of the lands they conquered -- even after we won a total victory, and could pretty much do as we pleased?

I don't intend to give the impression that I think the USA is always right (in fact, I agree with others who feel that we have mishandled our relations with Cuba since well before Castro came to power). But I also live in the real world, rather than some fanciful but completely artificial utopia. No nation as big and powerful as the USA will be universally loved and respected by less powerful nations, but in my opinion no nation on earth has ever handled this kind of power as well as we have.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: DougR
Date: 18 Jul 01 - 03:14 PM

Good post, Whistle Stop. I agree with most everything you wrote.

Fionn: I have no idea. To me, the subject of Terriorism, such as would be caused by containers arriving to the U.S. or car bombs, things like that, is an entirely different subject from SDI. Those are real threats too, and I would guess even more difficult to guard against than the threat of missiles.

As I said in a post sometime ago (I think). When I was a small boy, people came out of their houses to gaze up when an airplane flew over our little town. Who would have thought, in those days, while gazing up at the full moon that the U. S. would ever send a man to the moon? That the aeroplane we were all so curious to see flying through the airspace of my small Texas town would someday fly at speeds faster than sound!

That's why arguments from those of you who are evidently far more familiar with the technology required than I, that SDI will never work, is not wholeheartedly embraced by me. I have lived through too many miracles.

Kendall, I'm sure you're right. A Liberal lady for me! When we weren't lovin' we could be fightin'

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: kendall
Date: 18 Jul 01 - 03:42 PM

Doug, my innocent friend, I have never won an argument with a woman in my life, so, better stick to the "loving" part.

I'm not well versed in the technology aspect of Star Wars, but, I saw a group of scientists who worked on it under the Reagan administration, and they testified that it was an expensive political boondoggle. They should know, they were there.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 18 Jul 01 - 04:25 PM

Doug, you might as well just square up to it: the Spanish, the Ottomans, the Brits had have had their turn. America had the 20th Century. Now it's China's turn again. And there ain't anything you can do that's going to stop it.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: SDShad
Date: 18 Jul 01 - 04:39 PM

Is it just me, or is this thread distressingly lacking in musical content? If any topic calls for a song after so much discussion, it's this one. Okay, so it ain't folk, but....some day, it will be.

Political Science
By Randy Newman

No one likes us -- I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens

We gave them money -- But are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us -- so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin too

Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 18 Jul 01 - 04:43 PM

Fionn, China may indeed have its turn, if and when its people overturn their repressive system of political serfdom and dump the Mao Dynasty. China has always been one of the most paranoid, inward-turning countries on earth, where the leader was sanctified by God, and the people were all expendable. These traits do not a World Leader make, since about the 1300s anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Gareth
Date: 18 Jul 01 - 07:05 PM

Fionn

My history of the Far East (at least the East from my desk) is a bit hazey - British history teaching is so self centered. But didn't China have its turn ?

Trying to invade Japan and Viet Nam, new weapons of mass destruction based on gunpowder, rockets and biological warfare.

Oops have we not been here before ?

Wasn't there a song about the "Universal Soldier" ?

Perhaps there should be one about the "Universal Dictator", or is that a possible subject for a song competition ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: DougR
Date: 18 Jul 01 - 08:35 PM

Kendall: sounds like sound advice, sir.

Fionn: Surley you jest?

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jul 01 - 10:17 PM

Well, if you want musical content there's always THIS HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: thosp
Date: 18 Jul 01 - 10:31 PM

DougR --- you stumpped me --- i'm trying to figure out what "free capitalist" means

peace (Y) thosp

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: DougR
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 02:58 AM

Simple Greg, it means ...free capitalist! Free, as in "Free." "Capitalist," as in capitalist! Free Economy! A capitalist economy!

Is that better? :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 08:25 PM

?????????

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: thosp
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 11:27 PM

?????????

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Les from Hull
Date: 20 Jul 01 - 06:30 AM

DougR - sorry to be late in getting back to you, but I was not pointing out the futility of defence but the futility of relying too much on a single (and very expensive) method of defence. The UK's Maginot Line was always the wet stuff that surrounds us, combined with the Royal Navy. The advantage of the Royal Navy over the Maginot Line was that it could do other things as well, like sinking surface raiders and submarines.

Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
From: Gareth
Date: 20 Jul 01 - 03:02 PM

LEs

Was it not Lord St Vincent (John Jervis)
Who said in Napoleans time -
"I do not ay the French may not invade, but they will not come by sea"

Gareth