Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
Sure, we should always pursue advancements. 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.
|
By the first paragraph's reasoning we shouldn't have bothered with radar in WWII since someone would develop a way to get around it.
As far as giving these people "tremendous consideration", I have to wonder about their objectivity when they start throwing in policy pronouncements and analysis of the world situation. You want to argue against something based on science, stick to science don't throw in analyses of the North Korea situation and criticisms on where the money can be better spent. Personally I don't think these people can research the subject in the best, critical way since they have already formed absolutist conclusions. That would eliminate them from any consideration for the project in my book.