|
Sure, we should always pursue advancements. I'm not against that. Hell I want to see us with a Mars surface research base sometime in our lifetime.
And yes the trickle down of tech would be good, but it WON'T be worth 1 trillion dollars. Focus that money directly into faster computers and precision targeting rather than the omnibus of a ABM system that too many people from a wide range of fields say won't work. Technology isn't static. We may build things to stop the rockets of today, but they won't be able to stop the rockets developed specifically to ellude the abm system. It will be a questionable system when implemented which will, guaranteed, ensure more nuclear warheads are built and pointed at the United States.
And this is three decades of physicists who say we don't have the technology, and we wouldn't be able to develop it for a very long time, to hit these targets unless we are in close proximity to where they launch. And relying on that puts us in the position to knock out of the sky an orbital rocket rather than an ICBM. And that could start off a real international conflict. You don't have to directly discount it because of all these Nobel Prizewinners, and other physical scientists but you should give some tremendous consideration to their point of view. They are the ones who have and can research this subject in the best, critical way.
|