Wow, you're nuts.. No offense but you started with an ok opinion then it just went crazy, you need to work on your sarcasm.Originally posted by: cpumaster
you mean the democrats refused to give US an edge? Damn those french wussies traitors...we should spends trillions of dollars to gain any edge we could even if it doesn't work the first, second, third, or hundred times, as long as it enriched the military and DoD contractors, who cares about a couple of trillion dollars? it's chump change compare to our safety and the safety of our rich corporate master right? plus when we have the MDS, we could get the money back by blackmailing those nations without MDS, give us couple of billions a month, or stop assesing tax on our exports or we'll nuke you, essentially creating a world class mafia system. see, who is the genius now? BUSH AlmightyOriginally posted by: Amused
The opposition to a MDS is purely political and ideological. IMO, MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is insanity. We have every reason and right to defend ourselves, and cover all possible bases in doing so. The main political opposition to MDS is not that it wont work, and not that it's too expensive. That's just the BS they spoon feed the sheep. The reason an MDS system is opposed is because it gives the US an edge, and ends the MAD senerio we've lived under for so long. That brings fear of another arms race. But an arms race is a joke. No other country can compete, so the point is moot. MAD is an outdated policy, and there is no reason whatsoever to continue with it.