Google| Subject | Re: Republicanism still an offence in England? (wasRe: Queen mother |
| From | Conrad Dunkerson |
| Date | 2002-05-20 13:48 (2002-05-20 04:48) |
| Message-ID | <1178b6d1.0205200347.5dd830f3@posting.google.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien |
| Follows | Flame of the West |
Flame of the West <jsolinasNoSpam@erols.com>wrote in message news:<3CE57695.1DAE33E3@erols.com>...
Flame of the WestTwo of the better reasons... along with 'because spending the money in other ways could produce better results'.
Because it wouldn't work, or because it would offend other nations?
True. But with the present rate of nuclear proliferation, we have to worry about the future. It takes just one nuclear rogue state.So let's build a ridiculously expensive missile shield which will in no way protect us from them? What kind of logic is that?
Wouldn't it make more sense to work to prevent countries from getting nuclear capability until they had stable non-aggressive governments - and to support the development of those?
The 'missile shield as defense against terrorists using nukes' claim has always been completely idiotic. All the times this country has been hit by terrorists they have never once used a missile... why would they start doing so only once we developed the ability to stop it? The goal isn't really to defend against a minor attack by a 'rogue state' - that's an excuse to continue development towards a 'total shield' designed to repel a full scale nuclear assault. Which would have >some< merit if not for the 'it will not work', 'it costs too much', and 'it makes other countries justifiably afraid' problems.
2002-03-30-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
