Further, I would like think that both sides of the issue can present their ideas in a clear and thoughtufl way and not resort to name calling. I would ask that these discussions, even those on this Flameboard take on a new sence of decorum in light of the tragic events of recent days.

-Jay

~~~~~~~~~~~~

For those who want to argue such things at this time.

This are my contentions.

• After the 40 billion dollar appropriation, the United States can no longer afford to pursue SDI.

• SDI as an alleged umbrella would potentially stop missiles and would therefor not be a real deterrent to an purposefull and well designed terrorist attack on the United States.

  When one puts up an expensive umbrella, a determined and thinking foe will come not from the top but from the sides.

• The only real and proven way to prevent nuclear missile attack is MAD.

• Read IDIC's message in the Officer's Lounge.
  

The United States government is running a $100 billion surplus this year alone, after emergency spending and tax cuts.

The only real and proven way to prevent nuclear missile attack is MAD.

There are two statements here.

1) MAD is the only proven way to prevent nuclear assault.

You can not prove that A will prevent B, by the nature of proof. All you can prove is that it hasn't happened YET.

2) MAD is the only real way to prevent nuclear assault.

This is what you are trying to prove. You can not use your conclusion as one of your premises.

SDI as an alleged umbrella would potentially stop missiles and would therefor not be a real deterrent to an purposefull and well designed terrorist attack on the United States.

Strawman attack. SDI is intended as a defense against ICBMs, from whatever source. Who said anything about terrorists?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A) It is currently possible for anyone with a certain amount of money to attack or blackmail this country using an ICBM or ICBMs. This is undesirable.

B) If we implement SDI, it will be exceedingly difficult for anyone to attack or blackmail this country with ICBMs.

C) We can implement SDI with a relatively minimal amount of money and inconvenience.

[ September 15, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]

quote:

---

The United States government is running a $100 billion surplus this year alone, after emergency spending and tax cuts.

---

quote:

---

We can implement SDI with a relatively minimal amount of money and inconvenience.

---

~~~~~~~

quote:

---

Who said anything about terrorists?

---

Determined terror groups are the subject at hand. Tuesday showed that such terror groups can deliver a payload without a missile.

As far as these "rogue states" go, there isn't a one of them that does not know that any missile attack will be met with several more megatons in return. Hence MAD as a deterrent.

But you know what, let's say we build a missile shield. Good, now we stop some ICBM's as they are... where are we stoping them? Well, wherever it is we stop them (forgetting about the nuclear fallout and all that), let's give the shield to any country that wants to help pay for it.

I believe that's the current plan.

As far as these "rogue states" go, there isn't a one of them that does not know that any missile attack will be met with several more megatons in return. Hence MAD as a deterrent.

It is quite possible that one will not care, especially with the possibility of blackmail.

Determined terror groups are the subject at hand. Tuesday showed that such terror groups can deliver a payload without a missile.

Terrorists are not the target of SDI. Making a thread combining the two would then seem rather pointless.

Last I heard, the SDI initiative was predicted to run into hundreds of billions of dollars, which is minimal relative to what, exactly?

Last I heard was something like $50bil. And even hundreds is minimal compared to the projected surplus over the next ten years.

Ignoring the rest of the non arguments posted regarding what seems to be brought on by a current reading a version of a Logic 101 book

I thought you said you were trying to be civil with this thread, Jay. If you have a point to make about my arguments, make it.

prove these statements

OK, you prove this:

After the 40 billion dollar appropriation, the United States can no longer afford to pursue SDI

As you can read, there were only two parts to my post. In the first I only asked you to prove your wildly imprudent statements. Something you see fit not to do.

Very well, that is your prerogative. Still I thank you as I am sure the whole of the boards thank you for making your points in the same way, non-provable way. As always you are a great help to the debate.

I do however reject your statement that I should have known something you posted but cared not to prove. These are your unsubstantiated points afterall.

I can appreciate your scheduling concerns as I think we all run into tight schedules from time to time. Imagine my heavy work load at the paper at this time considering the events of the last week and still all the other local and world news that gets printed. Yet, I would ask that you and others not post things you do not have the time to back up and then excuse them to schedule.

In regards to the second half of my post, a half I can only conjecture as to your feelings on the subject. Although, as I have come to know you from your post I dare say I think I know what you would say. Yet, caring not to put words in your mouth I eagerly await your thoughts.

I'll say this though, I am still against SDI. However, if it is built (as I believe the hawks will now work very hard to push it though) it should be a global initiative allowing everyone who contributes to benefit.

[ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]

I stand corrected.

Still I thank you as I am sure the whole of the boards thank you for making your points in the same way, non-provable way.

The same way you made your points, I would point out. Seeing as we do not have enough confirmable information on hand, I would submit that no conclusions can be drawn at present. So let's end this until one of us comes up with some info. I'll work on it tommorow, if possible. No time tonight, unfortunately.

I do however reject your statement that I should have known something you posted but cared not to prove.

quote:

---

I stated that you should have had information on the topic before you first posted on it. I'd say you're jumping to conclusions, seeing as you admittedly have no information on the subject.

---

Again, I really must beg your pardon and seek clarification on what you are writing.

I allegedly admitted that have no information on the subject? When did I admit anything of that ilk? Not in any of the posts here.

As for the other part of the above statement, let's take this in chronological order. Not a difficult task since this thread is so short.

Ok, after your first post Omega my dear, I asked you to prove the following points:

quote:

---

The United States government is running a $100 billion surplus this year alone, after emergency spending and tax cuts.

We can implement SDI with a relatively minimal amount of money and inconvenience.

---

You chose not to. Rather, you posted a evasive non answer by saying:

quote:

---

OK, you prove this:

---

And:

quote:

---

You work in a library, you look it up. I'm on a limited schedule at this exact moment, I have not enough online time to enlighten you about things you should have known before acting like you did.

---

Thereby trying to place burden of proof on me. Again, another skillful evasion, but the burden of proof for your statements remains with you so in response I post:

quote:

---

I do however reject your statement that I should have known something you posted but cared not to prove. These are your unsubstantiated points afterall.

---

Now, clearly the onus is on you my dear friend to either prove your statements or remove yourself from this discussion. I am so sorry to be so technical here about all this, but your diversions and evasions cast a color of illegitimacy over much of what you write.

[ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]

Forgive me. "Apparently" would have been a somewhat more accurate choice of word. My point was that you brought up the subject of possible budgetary problems in your original post, and made a statement in that area. A statement that you have thus far not proven, much the same as I on the same subject. Therefore, as I have stated, we have not the information at hand to back any argument either of us might make on the budgetary aspect of SDI.

Thereby trying to place burden of proof on me.

You misunderstand. I hold you to the same standards you hold me. Nothing more. I will research this, as I hope you will, in an attempt to back up my claims.

Now, clearly the onus is on you my dear friend to either prove your statements or remove yourself from this discussion.

Which was exactly my point when I said:

I have not enough online time to enlighten you about things you should have known before acting like you did.

quote:

---

OK, you prove this:

---

You might as well have said 'OK, you prove this first before I move to say anything.'

You know and I know that that is not the way to debate any give topic. I wish in the future you would either answer the question, say nothing or say something like:

"Well I have no proof for that. However I would as your source about this statement."

In debate, as you well know, the onus is on you to either prove or give up the point when asked for evidence. You can't say you prove this first. No debate works that way and you know that full well.

quote:

---

You brought up the subject of the budget, not I. You should have had the information available to you when you did so.

---

I certainly did and I certainly do. However, you also know full well that I have no intention of moving to give any information until we get the the question of your proof settled first. Again, you like to use evasion debate as a tatic and clearly I have no intention of moving on until you clear up the questions asked of you.

This is not a double standard. Nor is it a legitimate debate tatic on your part to claim so after you have moved to divert the question.

quote:

---

Thus subtract... what, $50bil, now? Still, over $100 billion this year alone.

---

Conjecture is not proof.

While I enjoyed looking at the White House numbers, I thought that we might take a look at another source in The Congressional Budjet Office. The CBO had updated its figures on 5 September 2001, and in general the numbers are about the same, but the CBO goes into more detail than the White House.

quote:

---

Recently enacted legislation and the continued sluggish behavior of the U.S. economy have reduced the projected federal budget surpluses for fiscal year 2001 and future years. CBO projects that the total budget surplus in 2001 will be $153 billion--$122 billion lower than CBO estimated in May. About two-thirds of the decrease results from new legislation; one-third comes from a weaker economy and other factors. Despite that drop, if the $153 billion surplus materializes in 2001, it will equal 1.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the second largest surplus as a share of the economy since 1951.

Because of the smaller total surplus, CBO now projects a small on-budget deficit for this year. (The on-budget accounts exclude the spending and revenues of Social Security and the Postal Service.) If current tax and spending policies are maintained and the economy performs as estimated, CBO projects small deficits or surpluses in on-budget accounts for the next four years; however, steadily increasing on-budget surpluses reemerge by the middle of the decade. The projected surpluses would allow all public debt that is available for redemption to be retired by 2010.

The Budget Outlook

For the five years from 2002 through 2006, CBO projects surpluses totaling $1.1 trillion, which come almost entirely from off-budget accounts (see Table 1). For the 10-year period through 2011, CBO estimates that under current policies, surpluses will total $3.4 trillion. Social Security makes up about three-quarters of that total. In 2010, the on-budget surplus reaches 1 percent of GDP, and the total surplus grows to 3 percent of GDP. Those estimates should be viewed cautiously, however, because future economic developments, technical estimating errors, and future legislative actions could produce substantial deviations--a point that CBO discussed in detail in its January report on the budget and economic outlook.

---

Find the report here.

Some key parts I'd like to point out in the CBO report:

• CBO projects that the total budget surplus in 2001 will be $153 billion--$122 billion lower than CBO estimated in May. About two-thirds of the decrease results from new legislation; one-third comes from a weaker economy and other factors.
  

The fact of the matter is is that all the CBO and the White House can do is speculate as to if there is a surplus or not. What is clear however, is that when negative growth forces are applied to the budget, ie tax cuts, emergency military outlays and economic downturns, then the numbers consistantly get revised downward.

The American stock market took a huge hit when the planes destroyed the World Trade towers and hit the Pentagon. The economic downturn continues to deepen and as a result it is unclear at this point if there is a surplus of any kind. Therefor looking to fund the SDI initiative based upon a projected surplus is indulging in fancy.

• For the five years from 2002 through 2006, CBO projects surpluses totaling $1.1 trillion, which come almost entirely from off-budget accounts (see Table 1). For the 10-year period through 2011, CBO estimates that under current policies, surpluses will total $3.4 trillion. Social Security makes up about three-quarters of that total.

Both the White House and CBO include Social Security in some aspect of their budget analysis. I believe it is wrong to view Social Security as just another part of the general fund however. The monies in the Social Security Trust Fund have in a sence been spent already as future payments to retirees. Consequently, it is not free to be spent on other programs or military expenditures.

• Lower projections of economic growth over the next few years, along with other revisions to the economic forecast, will diminish surpluses by $283 billion between 2002 and 2011, according to CBO's projections. (Those revisions reflect changes in the economic outlook since January, when CBO last updated its economic assumptions.) In addition, technical changes will reduce surpluses by $177 billion.
  

Again, as the surplus is revised downward as a result poor economic forecasts, it becomes less realistic to point at the budget and say that there is a surplus at any given level if at all.

Now, there is considerable debate on where spending should go in each and every budget passed by the United States Congress. Rightly so. I believe that the United States needs to avoid moving back into the huge deficit spending of the Reagan years. With the huge emergency outlays by Congress in recent days, and the fact that predictions of the surplus are precarious at best, and with shaky economic news combined with my strong belief that the domestic side of policy can not be overlooked too long during all of this brings me to the conclusion that the United States can not afford to pursue this unproven, expensive and divisive idea.

[ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]