And, if I only knew as little as you appear to know, I wouldn’t be ragging on anybody else.

Look up

hyperbole

bull

shit

DUH! I’msimply pointing out pedro faith that we will overcome all difficulties in missile defense with time, money and brains while he flatly rejects that the same is possible for alternative energy technologies, Indeed, he seems unable to accept that we already have working alternative energy options that are improving at a steady pace: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/about.html

It may suprise you to learn this, but not everyone is as stupid as you. When you grow up, you’ll understand that.

What I’m saying is that its a bit hypocritical for the cons to rally behind “security” to the point of infringing on the civil liberties of law-abiding U.S. citizens, but when it comes to whether a multi-billion dollar missile defense system actually works or not, they’re willing to settle for less.

Words that you may need to look up in the dictionary are:

hypocritical, infringing, civil liberties, security, U.S.

- It’s interesting how you pit the current system against future targets.

- Virtually every weapon or defensive system invented to date has had a countermeasure developed against it. That’s why we keep developing new technology.

http://www.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_4044160

But you got me dead to rights. I should have said workable alternative energy solutions…

Guilty as charged.

But, my now corrected point remains…..correct.

Basically, I believe that when talking about a multi-billion (trillion?) dollar missile defense system, we should not have to settle for less.

Hey idiot, you said that “alternative energy solutions are waiting to be described.” I listed five that aren’t only “described,” they actually work. They may not work on as large scale as needed, yet, but they’re well beyond the theoretical stage.

There are fundamental physics problems in eeking more efficiency from solar power, etc.

Now, if you are suggesting we take half the SDI money and build Nukes…well, hell, I am all for that. A couple more nuke power plants would be quite welcome right about now…oh and while we are at it, how about a couple of more oil refineries? Wait, you say we tried that and the tree-hugger leftists refused to let it get passed the panoply of government regulation set up to prevent them?

Q’elle suprise….

But good for you paul, you didn’t call ANYONE an idiot in one of your posts!

Thanks buddy…..

And yet, pedro, you’re on record as being opposed to a “Manhattan-style project for alternative energy. See the quote above.

“Apparently you guys missed the GAO report that said Bush ordered a bunch of development and testing stages be rushed or skipped to hastily deploy a working system.”

I missed it too – as you stated it.

Again, please, let Democrats try and run on “get rid of missile defense” platform.

Please. (Four more years to appoint conservative judges!)

Dugger

He oughta know because he’s a… a… a….

I mean really, if you truly thought missile defense was a necessary expense, could you at least ask for a system that works instead of a bunch of crap taped together and painted to look shiny?

Yes, those technologies are available now, but from an engineering standpoint, none of them is likely to replace oil in the foreseeable future (although the drawbacks to nuclear power are more political than anything else).

Should we continue to fund development of these (and other) technologies? Absolutely. This should be our top priority, along the lines of another “Manhattan Project”.

Should we continue to develop and perfect an ABM system? Yes. Even if the system can only handle a small number of missiles at a time, it’s still valuable. As noted above, it acts as a deterrent. It introduces uncertainty into an enemy’s plans (i.e. if he lobs a half dozen missiles, which one(s) won’t get through?). And since the current (and likely near future) threat is from a small number of NK or Iranian missiles (as opposed to the 3000 missile threat of the cold war), having an operational ABM system it is far more realistic.

No? Let me help you out some more. I was talking about solar power, wind power, ethanol and other biofuels, hyrdroelectricity, hydrogen, nuclear power etc. etc. Are you trying to suggest that all of these alternatives exist in the strictly theoretical realm? Are you kidding me?

Solar power, wind power, nuclear power ethanol and hydrogen fuel cell technologies are all there, right now, working. Improvements are needed, of course. And yet you attack the “luddites” who assail missile defense as unworkable while attacking supporters of very real and workable alternative energy technologies as science fiction fanatics. You’re a hypocrite pedro, face it.