Conference back40::soapbox

    of course we should save billions of dollars.  at a lower cost, we'll
    make up the loss in volume.

>>    of course we should save billions of dollars.  

we might need it......

	According to the BBC this morning - Congress is looking at 
spending 115,000 Million dollars (it sounded weird when they said it 
too) to re-start SDI. 

Apparently they wanted to find out how the voters felt about this - and 
they hired a polling company - a majority of the questioned voters 
THOUGHT STAR WARS was ALREADY in place.  geesh.  They believe that 
this is a good place to start from as they can more easily build 
approval to fund it.     sad.



Pat

    
    This is madness !!!  To defend against whom ?  I have always been
    lukewarm on this piece of the Contract with America.  Yes, a pay
    raise is long overdue.  But weapons programs ?  And what about
    doing some base closings, doing some European withdrawals (slowly),
    and getting rid of the pork non-military stuff in the Pentagon ?
    
    I think this is one veto BC could sustain, both in Congress, and at
    the polls.  The GOP would play into his hands by doing this.  But I
    fear they may be dumb enough to do it anyway.  Somebody should clue
    in Strom Thurmond.  What an argument for term limits.  And Sam Nunn
    is just as out of step.
    
      bb

    Nonsense.  You really think the cold war is over eh?!  Then answer me
    this, why is Russia still producing Nuclear Submarines?  
    
    -Jack

    Cause it's one of the few things they're good at. They can't produce
    cars obviously.

     Why did Perry admit his units were not combat ready? Must be because
    we are wasting too much money on defense.

    > why is Russia still producing Nuclear Submarines?
    
    And why is Jack Martin writing Notes with generic Nouns capitalized?

    .6
    
    > wasting too much money on defense.
    
    exactly.  buying $600 coffemakers and $150 hammers.

    Uhhh....oh yeah......sorry!

  The Russian Army can't even win a war with one of it's own republics and they
are suppose to be a threat to us?

  Not very likely.

  George

    well, they don't have to win any war, but they sure can deliver
    a lot of hell in the process of losing...
    
    Chip

    IF, we don't need them, don't build them.  Don't forget to allocate
    some $$$$ to help the workers find a new job or learn a new skill.
    
    Bob

>    And why is Jack Martin writing Notes with generic Nouns capitalized?

He's a German spy?

    <- that's g-erman spy...

    
    I thought it would be German Spy, but then again I don't speak German!

    Why should we build them is a pretty pointless question.  After 40
    years on the public teat, the military wouldn't even know *how* to go
    back to its traditional American role.
    
    Kit

    Kit:
    
    Our defense IS the national public teat!  It needs to be streamlined no
    doubt, but it is one of the precepts of the Constitution.
    
    George, Russia still has nuclear warheads.
    
    -Jack

RE    <<< Note 265.17 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

>    George, Russia still has nuclear warheads.
    
  So don't we. And if you count the ones that work, we've probably got them
outnumberd by quite a bit.

  How many times over could we incinerate every living cell on earth with what
we've already got? I forget.

  George

    "Once" is quite enough for us to have to consider them still a threat,
    George.
    
    DougO

>    I thought it would be German Spy, but then again I don't speak German!

Aktuelle, it should be german Spy.  Right, /john?

    
    And anyways, nuclear weapons are cheap.  Stealth bombers aren't.
    
    You may fry, but you won't go broke making warheads.  This just
    can't be a good expenditure at this time.  Move the money away
    from deployment and into research.
    
    The SDI concept is NOT crazy, but is totally unproven.  If there is
    really a defense to neclear attack, it would be nice to have.  This
    is worth some research money.
    
      bb

    Oh no, now we have to deal with a neclear threat as well?!?

|   If there is really a defense to neclear attack, it would be nice to
|   have.
    
    I don't worry much about zombies.
    
|   This is worth some research money.
    
    What does a deficit hawk say?
    
    								-mr. bill

  So what's wrong with the nuclear defense we've had for the past 40 years
based on Mutually Assured Destruction?

  Why do we need a new one?

  George

    George:
    
    It is considered an honor to die in the name of Allah.  Fear is an
    international language to a point...but not where Ayotollahs and the
    like are concerned.  Consider the following...an Arab is assured of
    going to paradise if they die in the name of Allah.
    
    This is where SDI becomes important.
    
    -Jack

    
    RE: .18
    >So don't we.
    
    See 258.9 & .10

    You can fool some of the people some of the time.

    
    
    I know!! Since we don't need a military anymore, let's just spend
    alllllllll that money to feed the hungry... since we no longer have any
    enemies to worry about...

RE    <<< Note 265.25 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

>    It is considered an honor to die in the name of Allah.  Fear is an
>    international language to a point...but not where Ayotollahs and the
>    like are concerned.  Consider the following...an Arab is assured of
>    going to paradise if they die in the name of Allah.
>    
>    This is where SDI becomes important.
    
  So SDI is going to zap his rented van before he drives it into the World
Trade Center garage?

  Must be one tricky type of radar.

  George

    We still are called to defend other nations. We, the USA. Send Our men
    and women to forien soil. To defend others. Not others to defend
    themselves. We need all the advantages we can muster in our arsonal.
    If we fail to defend these other nations. They, the bad guys or gits,
    will romp upon us and upon the nation state that they initially romped
    upon. 
    
    The development of the stelth plane cost a whole bunch of money we
    didnt have either.... And it was a real herro when we needed it.
    Bombers as a whole are as obsolute as carriers and other such navel
    vessels. But as a portable landing field where we need it for smaller
    craft its great. Same can be said about the bomber. Same for SDI. 
    
    There are still nuts out there that could bring back the old guard of
    the Iron Curtian. They still exist. And to drop you guard against this
    is to put us in the same position as Peral Harbor......WWI stuff for
    WWII... 
    
    

>    <<< Note 265.17 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
>
>    Kit:
>    
>    Our defense IS the national public teat!  It needs to be streamlined no
>    doubt, but it is one of the precepts of the Constitution.
    
    Our founders spoke regularly and strongly about the dangers of having
    just such a military as we have. Fact is, the revolution was, in part,
    about that very issue.
    
    And my point is that any objective military needs are beside the point.
    For 40 years (and *only* for 40 years) we've had an immense permanent
    standing military. They are now the ultimate special interest, at the
    heart of the government. There is no way that they are going to give
    that up.
    
    Kit

  I don't think that anyone here is arguing that we should eliminate the
defense, but I just don't see where it needs to be increased. 

  We used about 1/3rd of our carrier force during the Gulf war and perhaps an
equivalent percentage of our other forces and we totally dominated the 4th or
5th largest army in the world. 

  We have enough nuclear weapons to continue our MAD defense against the
Russians and their conventional forces look like they could be held off by a
girl scout troop. 

  Just who do we need this new military to fight that we can't fight now with
a fraction of what we've got?

  George

    Re: .1
    
    >at a lower cost, we'll make up the loss in volume.
    
    Who's "we"?  The manufacturer?
    
    I could run off to a store and buy 20 sweaters at 40% off and "save"
    something like $240.  But I could "save" a lot more by not spending
    $360 on sweaters I don't need, since I already have 20.

    
    RE: .32
    
    Oh Look!!!! Under my bed!!!
    
    It's the "Yellow Menace"!!!!!

    A banana peel?

    Ever thought that we are building Starwars because Newt. couldn't sleep
    one night and turned on the TV and saw reruns of Star Trek.  Want's
    to keep us safe from Klingon invasion, you bet.
    
    Feel safer now?

    We should start preparing for the Borg now!

re: .,29, George

> zap his rented van before he drives it into the World Trade Center garage


I thought he allegedly drove it in there?

(Or did I hear he was finally convicted?)

Thw WTC bombing trial ended in conviction.  The one that's on now (or will
be soon) is the conspiracy-to-blow-up-the-UN-etc. trial.

    
    RE: .37
    
    Bjon's coming here????
    

    
    Yumpin Yimminy!!!
    
    Good ting I'm not a Swede!!!
    

    -1 SVede... :-)

| <<< Note 265.4 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| Nonsense.  You really think the cold war is over eh?!  Then answer me
| this, why is Russia still producing Nuclear Submarines?

	Because they're prettier?

    Correct.  They are prettier!

	But Jack, couldn't they paint ANY submarine yellow? 

With a nuke, they don't have to paint it.  They just crank up the juice.

    Spend the buckage on something to counter the silent russian subs (as
    in nuclear subs).
    
    Buy 10 stealth bombers instead of 20, then use the rest of the money to
    upgrade sattellite sub-tracking techniques and counter-measures.
    
    See how simple this is?  8^)
    
    -steve

  I know someone who is in the navy and flies P-3 Orion sub chasers. I was
talking to him last fall and he says that they have hardly anything to do. 

  In the past when his squadron was stationed in Japan a Soviet Sub would come
out every few days and try to evade detection. Now they hardly ever come out
and when they do they make almost no effort at evading detection but seem to
just go for a cruise. 

  Like the Russian Army, the general felling he gets from the officers on his
plane is that the Russian Navy in the Pacific is losing what ever edge they
once had and is falling apart.

  We are currently way ahead of where the Soviets armed forces were back in
1980 and they have been going steady backwards ever since. Maintain readiness
sure but we don't need a massive military build up. This is not the '30s and
baring a land war in China, unless the Klingons show up there is simply no one
to fight that we can't handle with a couple carrier groups and an Army division
or two. 

  George 

    Perhaps some portions of the military could be cut back in the P-3
    case. As other areas are built up agian. We, the beloved USA, are still
    called upon to go off to forien soils to protect forien interest.... in
    the name of freedom and world peace... And if you cut back programs in
    the name of bugatary cuts, then why the hell send one citizen to defend
    these countries?? 
    
    Yep, the ruskies are not around... much... But, if you are able to read
    some of the history of the Russian revolution. There still exist the
    spawning grounds for the mighty bear to make a return... Just when you
    thought it was safe to go back into the waters.....:)
    
    

| <<< Note 265.50 by MKOTS3::RAUH "I survived the Cruel Spa" >>>

| Perhaps some portions of the military could be cut back in the P-3
| case. As other areas are built up agian. We, the beloved USA, are still
| called upon to go off to forien soils to protect forien interest.... in
| the name of freedom and world peace... And if you cut back programs in
| the name of bugatary cuts, then why the hell send one citizen to defend
| these countries??

	Well, when we go to these countries, we could easily end the wars real
quick. But we don't go there with full battle power. We end up going there
using technology just a little better than theirs, and leave the big stuff,
that we paid billions for, at home. So if we are going to put money into stuff,
put it into getting more of the stuff we use, give out more money to those who
are in the armed forces, and cut back or hold steady the spending we use for
futuristic technologies. I mean, does it make sense to spend money on something
we always leave at home?



Glen

    The future technology stuff is going to be one of those, 'Gee, we had
    that plan... To bad we didn't have that technology developed enough to use
    it.... We could have saved even more lives...... ' Kinda like r&d
    development in digital. You have to work it to get the upper hand of
    the opposing camps. Other wise you wind up looking like the French
    troops when the Nazi's came rolling in with their tanks.
    
    I feel if we have something better to replace it.. sure.. if we don't
    we have to keep working to find the better unit.

    Russia is certainly still a threat, nuclear-ly speaking, IMO. 
    However, also IMO, the real threats now are from totally different
    sources -- North Korea, the Middle East, etc.  Just because communism
    is technically "dead" in parts of the old USSR doesn't mean the Cold
    War is over.  It has just changed focus.
    
    Still only IMO.
    
    M.

    threat needs to be defined...
    
    threat meaning capability? I agree the other sources are far more
    dangerous, but cannot deliver the devastation the Soviets can.
    
    threat meaning likelihood? i don't consider the Soviets a threat..
    
    nk, the middle east, etc... yes! 
    
    my stepson ships out to SK this weekend. we ain't feelin' warm
    and fuzzy.
    
    Chip

| <<< Note 265.52 by MKOTS3::RAUH "I survived the Cruel Spa" >>>


| I feel if we have something better to replace it.. sure.. if we don't
| we have to keep working to find the better unit.

	This would be fine and dandy if we ever used the stuff. But a lot of it
just sits around and is never used because we don't use the best equipment,
just the stuff that will get the job done. That's why I am saying we should
either cut back, or keep equal, the amount of money being used for R&D.


Glen

    The Russian threat is still there...the same people are pulling the
    strings and they are certainly still producing a great deal of
    offensive weapons for a bankrupt, supposedly peaceful, entity.
    
    If you will study the events there, you may even see certain parallels
    to post WWI germany.
    
    -steve

    to Jack Martin:
    
    	ALL fanatics are willing (nope, anxious) to DIE. Fanatics
     	though come in all shapes and forms, including various religious,
    	racial and cultural  persuasions.  To particularly mark out
    	so-call Arabs and to demean their Almighty (yes - that's how
        you note read out) simply shows your American narrow-minded
        jingoism, bigotry and prejudice.
    
        Now to basenote...
    
        Nope, I would not want more of my taxes be spent on these
        so-called defense equipment. It is time that our leaders use
        their heads, not their crotches/egos to figure out what down-
    	to-earth (no pun intended) defense ought to me. Granted there
        is a need to be 'prepared' but these are some generals' favourite
        new toys - that's all!!