[Grovenet] Shuttle launch in about 20 minutes!!
David Morelli
jo.david at verizon.net
Wed Jul 5 22:06:53 PDT 2006
On Jul 5, 2006, at 9:31 AM, Geri wrote:
> Would we hear about it, if the "antis" had been tested? I think,
> probably. (What do you think, David?) Did we know the N. Korea
> missile tests would happen on July 4th and would fail after less
> than a minute and fall into the Sea of Japan? What if they had
> gone farther?
>
> This is a weird situation. Is it possible those in power in the
> U.S. will figure out the least destructive route to take in
> responding and dealing with N.K. from this point on? So far, I've
> heard mention of a cooperative plan with Russia, China, S. Korea.
>
> Are there any firm allies of N.K. who will stick with them in this
> matter, against the U.S.?
>
> Geri
Geri,
I was thinking that we have paid plenty for the development of anti-
missile missiles since the 1950's. After 50 years we should have
something to show for it, right? The President has shown a desire to
spend big bucks for the renewed "Star Wars" technology. Since it has
been a few decades since the Reagan administration started dumping
money into an anti-ICBM program, we should have something to show for
it, right? So, why not have some of that rather expensive technology
sitting on one of our cruisers in the Korean Sea and every time North
Korea pops something into the air we knock it down.
If they can't get the data from their launches, they can't really
develop their systems. They won't know what does and doesn't work.
Of course, this proposal only works if the multi-billion dollar
systems work.
After all, the Star War's system was supposed to protect us from
scores of ICBM's launched from a variety of locations with no advance
warning. North Korea is launching their missiles from known points
after they load them on the launch platforms. Either we can respond
to them or we cannot. If we cannot, then what possible value is a
"Star Wars" system? We would be better off hiring suicide bombers to
attack North Korea.
David
More information about the GroveNet
mailing list