Bush's big-stick folly
-
AntiChrist
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 1:38 pm
- Location: The semicircle of hell
- Contact:
One thing about 2 and 9 together. The idea is that we show our soldiers to have normal lives, but we always consider the other side to be completely evil. Maybe some of them are, the rulers are, but not all of them are, and we never even begin to see this. Even the evil ones likely have a family that will miss them just as much if not more. Anyways, I might post more later, but I gotta go to school (bah).
I need a sig.
Originally posted by BaronTx
10. The events of 9-11 created an atmosphere of fear and instability. We don't offer the ruling leadership as the only solution. We have an elected president and Congress.
However it wasn't the people that got Bush in power, Al Gore, as I am sure you know, won the publics votes.
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
-
HighLordDave
- Posts: 4062
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
- Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
- Contact:
It's also possible for an elected government with two diametrically-opposed parties to behave unilaterally. One example is Reagan in the mid-80s at the height of his power. His popularity was so high, and his way of dealing with the media so adriot, that Democrats feared to get in his way. Reagan also had a "either your with us or against us" attitude, but his was veiled in his grandfatherly image (unlike Dubya's ignoramus persona) so the public wasn't threatened or offended by him. Democrats feared being seen in opposition to him, so they often went along with whatever Reagan wanted (which is why the national deficit ballooned in the 80s).
Another example is the McCarthy era. While it didn't last long, our elected leaders made Joe McCarthy the most powerful Senator in the country for a short time because they feared the power he usurped with his "list" of "known" communists.
I also remind everyone here that Adolf Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany. The conditions are not right in the US for a Hitler, or anyone else wanting to establish a dictatorship based on their cult of personality, it is not out of the realm of possibility in the future.
When it comes to invading Iraq, the real question goes back to why? To the best of my knowledge there is no imminent threat of direct Iraqi action against the US, nor am I inclined to believe that Saddam Hussein wants to incite any action that will get himself killed.
Some US officials claim that Iraq has met with Al-Qaeda members in the past and that they may be giving either refuge or aid to known terrorists. While this may be true, does that necessitate our invading Iraq? Satellite photos have shown a possible Al-Qaeda training camp being constructed in Iran near the Afghanistan border. Are we prepared to invade Iran as well?
What does it mean to meet with Al-Qaeda members? Just because someone passes through your country or seeks help doesn't mean that they're being aided. Officials from our own government have met with Sin Fein representatives, many of whom are known to consort with wanted IRA terrorists. Should the British be worried that we are aiding enemies of their state?
I go back to my line of questioning from before: Is it necessary to invade Iraq for any reason other than a political windfall for Dubya? From what I have seen from the US intelligence community, I am not inclined to believe so. I see Dubya's sabrerattling as a way to dictate the issues of the mid-term elections; instead of the floundering economy which would bring a lot of new Democrats to the House, he wants the election to be about war and security.
I am also wondering if the US is fully prepared to invade, occupy and rebuild Iraq when we haven't finished our business in Afghanistan. The current US Army has 10 active divisions, which are all suffering from a high OPTEMPOS (operations tempo; frequency of deployment) which affects their combat-readiness and I do not believe that we are prepared to fight two bush wars at the same time; our special forces, who will be on the front line of any new wars, are especially taxed right now. Is Dubya's bluster about Iraq a cover for not being able to find and assassinate Osama bin Laden?
I've said before that I do not doubt that Saddam Hussein is not a nice guy. Nor do I doubt that he has biological, chemical and radiological (but not nuclear) weapons. What I do not believe is the Iraq is a credible threat against the US, nor do I believe that by eliminating Saddam Hussein the world will be a safer place for Americans. I think the Dubya is using Iraq as a political tool to draw attention away from his domestic failures and to strengthen the position of Republican candidates in the mid-term elections.
We are not prepared for a campaign against Iraq; remember that we spent six months building up over half a million troops in Saudi Arabia before the Gulf War. At best we can mount an air campaign against Iraq and invade with small Marine Expeditionary Units and airborne brigades, but in order to invade and occupy a country, you need Corps-level deployment, which we have not seen. Nor are we prepared to occupy Iraq, which we would surely have to do because our policy in the middle east has been centered on stability and ensuring that no one country dominates the region. To assassinate Saddam Hussein and leave a power vacuum would accomplish neither.
Another example is the McCarthy era. While it didn't last long, our elected leaders made Joe McCarthy the most powerful Senator in the country for a short time because they feared the power he usurped with his "list" of "known" communists.
I also remind everyone here that Adolf Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany. The conditions are not right in the US for a Hitler, or anyone else wanting to establish a dictatorship based on their cult of personality, it is not out of the realm of possibility in the future.
When it comes to invading Iraq, the real question goes back to why? To the best of my knowledge there is no imminent threat of direct Iraqi action against the US, nor am I inclined to believe that Saddam Hussein wants to incite any action that will get himself killed.
Some US officials claim that Iraq has met with Al-Qaeda members in the past and that they may be giving either refuge or aid to known terrorists. While this may be true, does that necessitate our invading Iraq? Satellite photos have shown a possible Al-Qaeda training camp being constructed in Iran near the Afghanistan border. Are we prepared to invade Iran as well?
What does it mean to meet with Al-Qaeda members? Just because someone passes through your country or seeks help doesn't mean that they're being aided. Officials from our own government have met with Sin Fein representatives, many of whom are known to consort with wanted IRA terrorists. Should the British be worried that we are aiding enemies of their state?
I go back to my line of questioning from before: Is it necessary to invade Iraq for any reason other than a political windfall for Dubya? From what I have seen from the US intelligence community, I am not inclined to believe so. I see Dubya's sabrerattling as a way to dictate the issues of the mid-term elections; instead of the floundering economy which would bring a lot of new Democrats to the House, he wants the election to be about war and security.
I am also wondering if the US is fully prepared to invade, occupy and rebuild Iraq when we haven't finished our business in Afghanistan. The current US Army has 10 active divisions, which are all suffering from a high OPTEMPOS (operations tempo; frequency of deployment) which affects their combat-readiness and I do not believe that we are prepared to fight two bush wars at the same time; our special forces, who will be on the front line of any new wars, are especially taxed right now. Is Dubya's bluster about Iraq a cover for not being able to find and assassinate Osama bin Laden?
I've said before that I do not doubt that Saddam Hussein is not a nice guy. Nor do I doubt that he has biological, chemical and radiological (but not nuclear) weapons. What I do not believe is the Iraq is a credible threat against the US, nor do I believe that by eliminating Saddam Hussein the world will be a safer place for Americans. I think the Dubya is using Iraq as a political tool to draw attention away from his domestic failures and to strengthen the position of Republican candidates in the mid-term elections.
We are not prepared for a campaign against Iraq; remember that we spent six months building up over half a million troops in Saudi Arabia before the Gulf War. At best we can mount an air campaign against Iraq and invade with small Marine Expeditionary Units and airborne brigades, but in order to invade and occupy a country, you need Corps-level deployment, which we have not seen. Nor are we prepared to occupy Iraq, which we would surely have to do because our policy in the middle east has been centered on stability and ensuring that no one country dominates the region. To assassinate Saddam Hussein and leave a power vacuum would accomplish neither.
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
If I remember correctly, HLD, Reagan's chief concern was a massive military buildup and the SDI, two cards he used to great effect against the former Soviet Union. The Soviets were justifiably very shaken by Reagan's willingness to pour revenue into the US military machine. Hence, one reason, I am sure, that the deficit blossomed like it did during his administration.
CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
@ HLD: My 2 cents re:Reagan...
When Reagan took office, the US was at the its most vulnerable since WWII. Our military was in shambles. If we wanted to maintain or world position we had to beef up. Reagan's Military build up secured our position which we still hold today.
IMO the price tag was well worth it..
When Reagan took office, the US was at the its most vulnerable since WWII. Our military was in shambles. If we wanted to maintain or world position we had to beef up. Reagan's Military build up secured our position which we still hold today.
IMO the price tag was well worth it..
Scayde Moody
(Pronounced Shayde)
The virtue of self sacrifice is the lie perpetuated by the weak to enslave the strong
-
HighLordDave
- Posts: 4062
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
- Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
- Contact:
@Chanak:
This is a little bit off-topic, but you are correct, it was primarily massive military spending that sent the deficit skyrocketing. Secretary of the Navy John Lehman wanted a 600-ship fleet, which is astronomically high considering not only its initial costs, but also its maintenance and personnel costs. SDI was also very expensive, as were projects like the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank, the various USAF stealth projects, the AH-64 Apache, the F-18E/F Super Hornet and the Bradley IFV, which were all projects that hit their stride during the 1980s.
This massive defense build-up was indirectly responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union because they felt they had to keep pace with the US's conventional forces (we never matched them with sheer quantities of nuclear weapons). In 1989, the Soviet Union went bankrupt and the Cold War effectively ended. What was left was a massive deficit that took 10 years of letting Alan Greenspan set the basic fiscal policy of the country before the debt was under control. Of course, with his "tax rebate" and spending on the "war" in Afghanistan coupled with a busted-bubble economy, Dubya has not only erased any surplus we may have had, but sent the deficit barrelling out of control again.
My point in bringing up Reagan was that he was given basically a carte blanche by the Democrats who didn't want to appear to be getting in his way and essentially let the Republicans do whatever they wanted for the better part of three years from about 1983 until Iran-Contra blew up in Reagan's face in 1986-87.
This is a little bit off-topic, but you are correct, it was primarily massive military spending that sent the deficit skyrocketing. Secretary of the Navy John Lehman wanted a 600-ship fleet, which is astronomically high considering not only its initial costs, but also its maintenance and personnel costs. SDI was also very expensive, as were projects like the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank, the various USAF stealth projects, the AH-64 Apache, the F-18E/F Super Hornet and the Bradley IFV, which were all projects that hit their stride during the 1980s.
This massive defense build-up was indirectly responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union because they felt they had to keep pace with the US's conventional forces (we never matched them with sheer quantities of nuclear weapons). In 1989, the Soviet Union went bankrupt and the Cold War effectively ended. What was left was a massive deficit that took 10 years of letting Alan Greenspan set the basic fiscal policy of the country before the debt was under control. Of course, with his "tax rebate" and spending on the "war" in Afghanistan coupled with a busted-bubble economy, Dubya has not only erased any surplus we may have had, but sent the deficit barrelling out of control again.
My point in bringing up Reagan was that he was given basically a carte blanche by the Democrats who didn't want to appear to be getting in his way and essentially let the Republicans do whatever they wanted for the better part of three years from about 1983 until Iran-Contra blew up in Reagan's face in 1986-87.
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
-
dragon wench
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
- Contact:
Time for me to throw in my two cents I think 
The first thing I should say is that I posted this article because I found its provocative stance interesting, and I was curious to see how people would react. It is for this reason that I initially refrained from offering my own views on the subject
I would concur with those who have stated that Knox has failed to situate certain of his arguments into a proper historical context. This is one of my major criticisms of journalists in general, even those who are skilled are often exceedingly sloppy (willfully or not is, of course, a matter for debate) in the way they present information.
That being said, I do essentially agree with Knox's belief that Bush's National Security Strategy is a less than subtle attempt to further assert and secure US interests at the global level. I do, however, feel that American imperialism as we currently know it moreso owes its roots to more recent (historically speaking) circumstances than those that Knox cites, and that it actually dates back to the beginnings of significant corporate involvement in US politics.... Moreover, as is commonly acknowledged, I also contend that the Cold War and its various ramifications considerably amplified the US push for global political and economic supremacy.
I believe that an example of the above-stated factors can be found in the assassination and overthrow of the left-wing, democratically-elected Chilean president, Salvadore Allende in 1973. Many have successfully argued that this murder was orchestrated by the CIA and, also, the United Fruit Company (Dole) which had vested interests in Chile.
Regarding the issue of objectivity in history..... I would argue that anything, including primary sources (i.e official documents, newpapers --even personal diaries to an extent-- as opposed to articles written by historians) is biased. These materials were not simply left lying around due to a magnanimous desire to preserve a record....those who so carefully archived such things did so with a specific agenda. Indeed, countless documents have been destroyed for precisely the same reason. Certainly, drawing from primary sources does offer a more disinterested pespective than an article that only culls specific information in order to form an argument. Nonetheless, the motivation behind the existence of historical documents must always be considered. Further, often what is absent reveals as much as what is in ample evidence.
I would like to note, however, I do think that political manifestos are somewhat different in nature to the types of documents outlined above. These are usually sincere declarations of the hopes and goals of a particular body.....
oh...if any of you are interested in reading further alternate views on Iraq I have found the following link.....http://www.ganashakti.com/tw/thisweek/world.htm
The first thing I should say is that I posted this article because I found its provocative stance interesting, and I was curious to see how people would react. It is for this reason that I initially refrained from offering my own views on the subject
I would concur with those who have stated that Knox has failed to situate certain of his arguments into a proper historical context. This is one of my major criticisms of journalists in general, even those who are skilled are often exceedingly sloppy (willfully or not is, of course, a matter for debate) in the way they present information.
That being said, I do essentially agree with Knox's belief that Bush's National Security Strategy is a less than subtle attempt to further assert and secure US interests at the global level. I do, however, feel that American imperialism as we currently know it moreso owes its roots to more recent (historically speaking) circumstances than those that Knox cites, and that it actually dates back to the beginnings of significant corporate involvement in US politics.... Moreover, as is commonly acknowledged, I also contend that the Cold War and its various ramifications considerably amplified the US push for global political and economic supremacy.
I believe that an example of the above-stated factors can be found in the assassination and overthrow of the left-wing, democratically-elected Chilean president, Salvadore Allende in 1973. Many have successfully argued that this murder was orchestrated by the CIA and, also, the United Fruit Company (Dole) which had vested interests in Chile.
Regarding the issue of objectivity in history..... I would argue that anything, including primary sources (i.e official documents, newpapers --even personal diaries to an extent-- as opposed to articles written by historians) is biased. These materials were not simply left lying around due to a magnanimous desire to preserve a record....those who so carefully archived such things did so with a specific agenda. Indeed, countless documents have been destroyed for precisely the same reason. Certainly, drawing from primary sources does offer a more disinterested pespective than an article that only culls specific information in order to form an argument. Nonetheless, the motivation behind the existence of historical documents must always be considered. Further, often what is absent reveals as much as what is in ample evidence.
I would like to note, however, I do think that political manifestos are somewhat different in nature to the types of documents outlined above. These are usually sincere declarations of the hopes and goals of a particular body.....
oh...if any of you are interested in reading further alternate views on Iraq I have found the following link.....http://www.ganashakti.com/tw/thisweek/world.htm
Spoiler
testingtest12
Spoiler
testingtest12
Regarding the issue of objectivity in history..... I would argue that anything, including primary sources (i.e official documents, newpapers --even personal diaries to an extent-- as opposed to articles written by historians) is biased.
Of course. Anything our minds come into contact with feels the taint of bias. Everything we come into contact with feels our bias.
I do believe the goal here is to utilize resources that are as free of partisan tinkering as possible. That's a realistic goal, and I usually find such resources at places people hardly pay attention to anymore: the library is a good example.
I think it is also possible to wade through anything and glean something worthwhile. It's a well known fact in law enforcement that a number of witnesses will each express a different version of an event each had witnessed. Investigators then piece together what happened by using information from all of the witnesses. I also believe this same principle applies here.
CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
Originally posted by Chanak
SDI
Possibly one of the stupidest ideas ever created (in my opinion), I have never once in my life heard an excuse for SDI that rang true. Please if any one wants to set me straight feel free.
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
-
HighLordDave
- Posts: 4062
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
- Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
- Contact:
SDI (and it's descendent, the Ballistic Missile Shield) are simply ways for the reigning administration to pad the wallets of their defense-industry friends on projects that will never pan out or be reliable enough to be worth the investment.
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
Originally posted by HighLordDave
SDI (and it's descendent, the Ballistic Missile Shield) are simply ways for the reigning administration to pad the wallets of their defense-industry friends on projects that will never pan out or be reliable enough to be worth the investment.
LMAO, my point exactly. Sorry I should have said "rang true and was beneficial to society world over."
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
Actually, what HLD is writing about in his post, and what the little rabbit trail regarding Reagan leads to, is what DW also mentions: corporate influence in the US government. That, I feel, is instrumental in shaping US foreign policy, and most certainly plays a role in Dubyah's overtures.
CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
Originally posted by Chanak
Actually, what HLD is writing about in his post, and what the little rabbit trail regarding Reagan leads to, is what DW also mentions: corporate influence in the US government. That, I feel, is instrumental in shaping US foreign policy, and most certainly plays a role in Dubyah's overtures.
I think most people who look at the US government with an indifferent eye can see the backing of major corporations. You also have to wonder who is at fault, is it the corporations themselves, I mean they are in business it is surely instinctual to ally themselves with the biggest power. I don't blame them for taking advantage.
Personally I think it is the fault of the system that is in place, campaign contributions is one, what is the function of those campaigns? They have very little value since most people in most countries vote as a block rather than due to some piffling personal meet and greet. All this travelling around the country what does it actually do, as far as I am concerned as a voter I agree with their ideology (or disagree with the oppositions ideology) and vote from that, I don't vote for whoever happened to come and shake my hand.
If anyone really wants to change things either one of the presidential parties has to make a stand against this type of behaviour or big business has to be outlawed from the white house. I can not see many alternatives. One solution would be to stop the goverment looking like they can be bought, integrity goes a long way as far as I am concerned.
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
Originally posted by Chanak
This has taken a long time to develop, Sleep. Who is to blame?
The people - Americans - are. They allowed this to happen.
Is blame such an important factor in the actual future of society, will blaming the American people for what has happened actually achieve that much. From the point of view of scapegoats, at the moment in the UK there has been a huge debate over A-Levels being "dummed down" to accomodate the governments league figures on if the tests are too easy, so what has been done? They have blamed a single individual who has been sacked.
Does that change what has occured or even what is going to be done to rectify the mistakes, no. Rather it is just a pawn thrown to a baying crowd in an effort to appease them, if there was justice then this kind of thing would not have happened in the first place.
Blame is a diffident issue, you can't heap blame on one factor in all this, just like I can't solely blame the Versailles Treaty for starting WW2 (as HLD so rightly pointed out to me). It is a collection of events that led to what has happened, just as a collection of events will lead to it's down fall. We all have to preach it, that is the only way it will change.
BTW all my opinion and completely off topic
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
Originally posted by Chanak
This has taken a long time to develop, Sleep. Who is to blame?
The people - Americans - are. They allowed this to happen.
This is no situation unique to America, the same is true for sweden, and i suspect about other every nation as well...
While others climb the mountains High, beneath the tree I love to lie
And watch the snails go whizzing by, It's foolish but it's fun
And watch the snails go whizzing by, It's foolish but it's fun
@Sleep:
Ultimately, the only ones with the power to change the USA are the people of the USA. Blame, in itself, only serves as an instrument of change when we accept it, and decide to do something about it. That's where the usefulness of it resides. Beyond that, I totally agree with you.
Ultimately, the only ones with the power to change the USA are the people of the USA. Blame, in itself, only serves as an instrument of change when we accept it, and decide to do something about it. That's where the usefulness of it resides. Beyond that, I totally agree with you.
CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
Originally posted by Chanak
@Sleep:
Ultimately, the only ones with the power to change the USA are the people of the USA. Blame, in itself, only serves as an instrument of change when we accept it, and decide to do something about it. That's where the usefulness of it resides. Beyond that, I totally agree with you.
Can you see the average person you know humbling themselves enough to accept they are wrong. Ego is a terrible thing that does cloud things so, ego and pride, being proud of something is good, being to proud to accept there is a fault can only lead to stagnation. I agree however that the change has to start with the people, I can not remember a story of revolution starting at the top, just look at the French Revolution.
OT: Why did you change your sig, I thought the old one was great
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
Hmm. What a huge wodge of regurgitated media-speak.
You have to read between the lines. Or not read the press at all.
Reagan presided over a huge build up of the US Military.
SDI showed the soviets that the US could out spend them on anything. Not only could the US have tanks and butter (as opposed to just tanks), they could potentially stop incoming ICBMs. Just like how every missile tub was shadowed by a US hunter-killer, every mobile erectable launcher could be targetted with stealth bombers.
Some plans call for airpower and special forces to take out Iraq. I don't see why a Corps is required. Afghanistan has represented a maturing of 80 years of US airpower strategy. I think it will work just as well there.
Not to mention that US industry is mobilising for war. Civilians are having to wait weeks for ammo and red-dot sights: military has first priority at the moment...
You have to read between the lines. Or not read the press at all.
Reagan presided over a huge build up of the US Military.
SDI showed the soviets that the US could out spend them on anything. Not only could the US have tanks and butter (as opposed to just tanks), they could potentially stop incoming ICBMs. Just like how every missile tub was shadowed by a US hunter-killer, every mobile erectable launcher could be targetted with stealth bombers.
Some plans call for airpower and special forces to take out Iraq. I don't see why a Corps is required. Afghanistan has represented a maturing of 80 years of US airpower strategy. I think it will work just as well there.
Not to mention that US industry is mobilising for war. Civilians are having to wait weeks for ammo and red-dot sights: military has first priority at the moment...
"Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his pants for his friends."
Enchantress is my Goddess.
Few survive in the Heart of Fury...
Gamebanshee: [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/"]Make your gaming scream![/url]
Enchantress is my Goddess.
Few survive in the Heart of Fury...
Gamebanshee: [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/"]Make your gaming scream![/url]
SDI relies on the basic principle that you have already been shot upon, in which case there is also the action of retribution since no nation is willing to be shot at and not shoot back. Surely it only escelates from there. The constant state of alert is worrying, surely it leads to a state of paranoia?Originally posted by Gruntboy
SDI showed the soviets that the US could out spend them on anything. Not only could the US have tanks and butter (as opposed to just tanks), they could potentially stop incoming ICBMs. Just like how every missile tub was shadowed by a US hunter-killer, every mobile erectable launcher could be targetted with stealth bombers.
There is also no idea if SDI really works unless it is shot upon. It was set up as prevention of the Ruskies blowing the US up yet the Ruskies can no longer afford to do that, so which other nation would?
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.