I hear all over the news this morning where Shrub has okayed more funding for a system that many critics, and scientists argue cannot and will not work. The most recent estimate on the price tag I heard is something like $28 Billion dollars. What a waste of money in my opinion. Just yesterday I read where something like $300-500 million dollars is being cut from givernment assisted programs that help low income people with their heating bills.
I am sorry but we have a serious case of priority whack going on in this administration.

The problem with government programs like this (at lest the ones I was involved with) is that the people making the decisions have military backgrounds, but no technical knowledge. They rely on the bigwigs at the defense companies to explain things to them. Well, guess what, the bigwigs at defense companies also only have military backgrounds. By the time engineers have any say in it, the contract is in place and the world has been promised. I think 50% of the money in these kinds of projects is thrown away because the initial promise was more than can be delivered. Then the contractors barely deliver and "succeed" by meeting the greatly reduced requirements over time. I'd like to see one major defense project in which all of the original requirements are met with the budget that is originally deemed "enough."

Ahead of all this, you have to figure in the politicians. They all have companies from their homes states lobbying them for the business. then the military folks have to throw work to these extra, add-on companies that is typically a total waste. If they'll promise some money to go that way, then the politicians will vote for more appropriations.

This is a hot button topic for me and the downfall of America's respect for the corporation has only strengthened my belief that this remains. I think if you're looking for corruption, just go straight to the big defense companies and see the relationships between their heads and the heads of the military and those who decide spending. This is why projects like this become impossible to complete and cost taxpayers more money. the intent of the President is good in my opinion, it's just all the foxes in the henhouse that will ruin it.

now, let me get this (forgive me) straight.

the scientific community reached consensus years ago that greenhouse gases are causing global warming, but in the meantime we relax air pollution standards for these same greenhouse gases and call for more research.

the scientific community reached consensus that missile defense shield technology is not ready for primetime, and offers little, if any protection, so we move ahead, spend the money, and implement!

what next? war is peace..... (right before hitting the "add reply" button, i thought about what i intended to be a literary allusion and had a shuddering thought -- am i underestimating my own prescience? for when we start bombing iraq, it will surely be dubbed a peace mission. and dubya will go on the airwaves assuring us that we are now engaged in a great peace mission, testing whether that nation... oh, how i hope i'm wrong!)

[quote]Originally posted by puckman1:
President Bush...has okayed more funding for a system that many critics, and scientists argue ...will not work. What a waste of money in my opinion. Just yesterday I read where something like $300-500 million dollars is being cut from givernment assisted programs that help low income people with their heating bills.

---

I disagree. I would much rather have my tax dollars spent on the development of missile defense than on heating the poor.

A thousand years ago the scientific community generally agreed that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe. The scientific community's record is not a universally good one when it comes to being right/wrong. So much of what's accepted as fact today will almost cetainly be proved false eventually, wholly or partially. Why can we never see ourselves standing in the shoes of those ignorant people a thousand years ago (and I don't mean the peasant farmers but rather the scientits of the day) who belived they had established that we were living at the center of the universe. We acknowledge that they got it all wrong then but tend to think that we've figured it all out now. Anyway it's not really a question of scientific validity at all.

It's not difficult to accept that a missile defense system that will offer us quality defense is only a matter of time, work and money, the present misconceptions of some critics and scientits notwithstanding. That, however is not what we're talking about today. The small system that President Bush proposes funding will offer us a limited chance to defend against a rogue missile launched by one of the world's krazy kountries or some rabid fundamentalist Saudi. With the North Koreans, and others, industriously peddling their wares to anyone with a gripe and a buck (e.g., missiles recently discovered enroute to Yemen) such a scenario is also, only a matter of time and I suspect we're talking approximately 20 years.

Global warming, although a serious problem, is a less immediate threat unless you're living on that South Pacific atoll I keep seeing on the news thats going to wash away this year.

Starwars was conceived by President Reagan and Presidents Bush, Clinton, and Bush have all continued to fund and develop. That ought to tell you something.

Cutting fuel assistance will also reduce fossil fuel consumption and help to forestall the effects of global warming.

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Torgauer ]

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Torgauer ]

And if we must be spending money on military things, far better for it to be a defensive system than an offensive one. And I'd have to agree that not all of what scientists say today is correct tomorrow. That said, I'm not sure I'd do things like this at the expense of heating people's homes if it had to come down to one or the other, but I'm not sure that it would have to.

Lots of discussion on the airwaves yesterday. One of the more interesting points was this:

The system that is being developed and put in place will accommodate only one type of threat. A straight on single warhead attack (and only within certain geographic constraints as the system will be housed in Alaska). The system will have no capability to discern between real warheads and decoys. It will not be anything more than a bullet shooting at another bullet.

I am an incredible supporter of R&D initiatives, in general. The best way to find advanced technologies is to build things like this. However, I am also a firm believer in putting the people of our country before the almighty dollar. I think that it is inappropriate at this time to fund this kind of a project, when there are so many other sectors that could use these budgeted funds. Our economy is still sputtering, there are no real policies in place to address that (other than "make war to prime the economic pump"), and there are a lot of people in real trouble out there.

After listening to all the analysts on both sides of the issue yesterday, I really could not reach any other conclusion -- this seems most irresponsible. Too bad the current national safety climate is allowing people to run over the common sense checks that might normally be triggered.

I guess we need more tax cuts to pay for the cost of this fantasy.

[quote]Originally posted by Torgauer:
The scientific community's record is not a universally good one when it comes to being right/wrong. So much of what's accepted as fact today will almost cetainly be proved false eventually, wholly or partially.

---

Torgauer, do you *really* believe this? In fact, the principles of Newtonian physics have lasted for nearly 400 years, and many other aspects of physics are still relevant, including the Copernican astrophysical system, Galilean mechanics, early thermometry and other physical laws; the principles of chemistry put forth by Lavoisier have held since the late-1700s and the field progressed from there. Relativity and quantum physics are now approaching a century of explanatory power and relevance, theoretically set forth in the early 20th century and again in the 1950s, and experimentally proven in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. The laws of mathematics set forth by Leibniz have been strengthened, not overturned. In fact, the last 100 years have provided us with perhaps the greatest revolutions in the biological sciences (though Darwin's theories still hold), and in the development of computer science and other applied forms of mathematics and physics, but predecessors have not been "proved wrong." Qualifications, adjustments, enhancements and advancements upon previous theories are to be welcomed but they are not the same thing as complete nullification.

At any rate, one of the strongest critics of the missile shield mumbo jumbo, Theodore Postal of MIT has claimed attempted censorship by the government and his employer. An excellent article on the unfeasibility of the "missile shield" concept can be found at Common Dreams site.

A perfect quote: "This situation is similar to a group of people deciding to build a bridge to the moon. Instead of assessing the feasibility of the full project before moving forward, they decide to start building the onramps, since that's the part they know how to do."

But then science is often powerless before politics, as the long history of humanity has shown. At least they can't burn Postol at the stake nowadays....

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Whatever the science may or may not be, forgive me for not feeling all warm and fuzzy that the big defense contractors will be developing this system. These are not known for staying on budget, or even providing the technology they are contracted to provide. In addition to the $200 hammer, they gave us the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, which has some minor fire problems (HBO did a movie on that one a few years back - would have been funny if it weren't true); the stealth aircraft, which work fine, but just can't get wet; and the Harrier jet, which has a bad habit of crashing with Marines inside.

Given our likely need for more conventional weapons in the upcoming war(s) we will be fighting, is this system really a priority?

This Slate article makes it seem that the "false decoy" maneuver around defense technology makes SDI as delusional as the RIAA's attempt to stop music file sharing.

[quote]Originally posted by Torgauer:

I would much rather have my tax dollars spent on the development of missile defense than on heating the poor.

---

Ah, compassionate conservatism!

[quote]Originally posted by Torgauer:


Starwars was conceived by President Reagan and Presidents Bush, Clinton, and Bush have all continued to fund and develop. That ought to tell you something.

---

Yep, all four of those scumbags knew who greased their holes (ie, military contractors).

We all took note of the latest failed SDI test last week, right? This program is The Mother of All Pork Barrels.

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Bill W ]

This is an utter and complete disgrace. Everyone in government who has been responsible for this multi-billion dollar waste ought to rot in hell.