From: "John Beamish" 

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:03:30 -0500, Adam field.near the bridge">
 wrote:

> John Beamish wrote:
>
> Indeed so is the Shuttle a civie vehicle or a US "national security
> asset"?
>
Too obvious:  national security asset.  Hands down.


>>
>
> Oh indeed. However by doing so they advanced US rocket tech & may have
> thus allowed US missiles to travel further on less fuel etc. etc.
>
The quintessential Canadian book:  How to get better gas mileage in a
Zamboni (an ice cleaning and preparation machine).  Surely you're not
suggesting that the US mil (or any mil, for that matter) is going to worry
about mileage figures when it comes to launching/fending off an attack!


>>>
>>
>> You have mistaken my position.  I was referring to offensive
>> capability.  As for defensive: sure it's very nice to have.
>
> Big countries seem to like them.
>
There are lots of things that big countries like.  It doesn't mean that the
country with the biggest, baddest high tech is going to win in the long
run.


>> And if you
>> were going to attach Brazil or the Ukraine what would be your first
>> targets:  coffee plantations and wheat fields?
>
>
> Sao Paulo, Rio, Brasilia, Kiev, Odessa. You know the place where people
> live as usual.

Hmm ... you'd leave the mil targets untouched.


> Big countries aren't looking at offensive capabilities against other big
> countries or indeed nuclear capable countries. The price is too high.
>

MAD.

> Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5