posted
Um...I know little about these things, and so I am quite possibly wrong, but I was under the impression that Reagan was not president at the time.
posted
Could have been Nixon. Or even Johnson, the plane is actually that old.
I'd like to mention that I was probably reading Clancy while most of you were still puzzling over the intricacies of Dr. Seuss, and I'm aware that Red Storm Rising doesn't have those evil foreigners abandoning the US in her moment of need. Hence my saying a common feature instead of a universal one. I'd also like to point out that Clancy's always had a faintly naive view of the world. I greatly enjoyed reading his books, but I'm not going to use them as the basis for any sort of worldview or to form an opinion on global politics.
Furthermore, by mentioning Arab immigrants, it wasn't my intention to foster any sort of stereotype. Simple fact is, certain Middle-Eastern nations have a large proportion of people who would actively endorse a terrorist nuclear attack, and could bring the resources of said nations to bear on such a project. And what are you going to do if threatened by insurgents who (ostensibly - remember that they are Caucasians and many would not stand out as what we call 'Arabs') belong to a particular ethnic group? Watch The Siege for an idea of the problems and the kind of solutions that might emerge - but don't take it any seriouser than Clancy.
------------------ "I rather strongly disagree, even if I share the love of Dick. Speaking of which, that would be the most embarrasing .sig quote ever, so never use it."
1)I believe NMD has been tested three times and has failed twice.
2)I'm taking an informal logic course right now. Seeing as we're arguing aout fallacies and such, it is a fallacy to make a fallacious appeal to authority, (ie) the authority as put forward isn't one. Now, its something of a fuzzy area what comprises an authority, but one must generally be a recognized expert in a discrete field.
Tom Clancy isn't an expert in the field in question. He writes fictional literature based on his own limited knowledge of highly classified data, within the constraints of drama. He's no more qualified to endorse this system than Chris Gough is to tell you how to align dilithium crystals in a Klingon warp core.
The Nobel Laureates are another matter. Internationally acclaimed intellectuals are generally the best possible authorities through most conventions in informal logic. The most important thing is that their field of expertise is the field in question. I'll concede that a Physics Laureateship(?) isn't a perfect fit with space-based nuclear weaponry as a field of knowledge. They are, however, probably the closest thing to a body of experts you're gonna get short of actual professors who've wrote theses on the things. (Which, incidentally, there are no shortage of, and most of them are anti-NMD, but that's only so far as I've seen)
Anyway, I don't think I'll join in to this wholesale because a)I think everyone can guess which side I'll take b)Most of my points are being articulated anyway.
Cheers, Tom
------------------ "People have the right to discriminate based on religion." "There is no "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution" -Omega, Jan 26 and 30, respectively
Printer-friendly view of this topic
