The following quotes by Pres. Obama were made some time ago, and it is barely possible that he may have changed his mind since then. However, adults usually don't do a complete about-face on political and moral principles.
Here is what he said at a Meet the Press interview in 2008:
"As I've said about the flag pin [usually worn on the lapel], I don't want to be perceived as taking sides".. "There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression.." "The anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing."
"The National Anthem should be 'swapped' for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing'. If that were our anthem, then, I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as 'redesign' our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of warring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails - - - perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments ...."
When I become President, I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation, have placed upon the nations of Islam, an unfair injustice which is WHY my wife disrespects the Flag and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past".
"Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path. My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First black Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America".
The above are naive ideologies of an immature man. He apparently had no idea of world realities, nor even an understanding of basic diverse motivations of human beings. It appears that we have elected a teen-age mentality adult as US President. W are now forced to live with it another 2 years.. Meanwhile, other teen-age mentality ideologists will support the Obama program to the continuing destruction of the US economy and military power. This will result in a reduction in our standard of living.
It is customary to take the President of the US at his word.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Let's Get Government Out Of the Rental Business
The May 16 issue of C&E News contains an article on NUFO. This is an organization, of which I had not previously heard. The acronym stands for the National User Facility Organization.
Rajendrani Mukhopadhyah discusses this organization. It is essentially an organization with members from universities and industry who are interested in using government facilities to foster their research. Thom Mason is the Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, one of the government facilities allowing access to use of its equipment. He is quoted as saying that the US was the first country to set up large-scale scientific facilities and currently is the best equipped in the world, with an infrastructure of large-scale instruments.
Private companies rent these facilities as part of their research efforts, rather than invest separately in this expensive equipment.
The spotlight shines only recently, because of overall attempts to reduce government expenditures. There are two aspects to the NUFO problem. On the one hand, rental income to the government may support the continued existence of these facilities. Presumably if the rent were high enough, the government could even make a profit. However, the C&E News article contains nothing on the economics. In fact, it seems to presume that the rental of the facilities is a losing proposition, because there is a program to petition Congress for increased funding.
My position is that the US government should not be in the business of owning facilities, which are rented to private organizations. The likelihood is that the various government agencies had availability of sufficient taxpayer funds that they decided to purchase expensive equipment, which they no longer need. Hence, their ability to allow rental time to private industry.
At the beginning of World War II, the US government could foresee a shortage of rubber for military vehicles and the need for production facilities of the newly discovered penicillin, which could be used in the field to combat soldiers' infections. In those days, government was able to operate rapidly and constructed synthetic rubber factories and penicillin production plants. At the end of the war, the facilities were sold to private industry, presumably on the premise that it was not government's business to own manufacturing units in a piece-time economy. It retained all aspects of manufacture of nuclear weapons, which is an obvious justification.
Taking a clue from our governmental predecessors, I propose that the government facilities which are being rented to private industry for its research, should be sold at public auction. The synthetic rubber and penicillin facilities were sold at the end of World War II at very low prices. This could be repeated, with the taxpayers taking the loss from the original investment, or pricing could be more consistent with present market value. If individual companies could not purchase the required facilities, they could work out the financing to develop a consortium of company ownership for the total purchase.
Rajendrani Mukhopadhyah discusses this organization. It is essentially an organization with members from universities and industry who are interested in using government facilities to foster their research. Thom Mason is the Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, one of the government facilities allowing access to use of its equipment. He is quoted as saying that the US was the first country to set up large-scale scientific facilities and currently is the best equipped in the world, with an infrastructure of large-scale instruments.
Private companies rent these facilities as part of their research efforts, rather than invest separately in this expensive equipment.
The spotlight shines only recently, because of overall attempts to reduce government expenditures. There are two aspects to the NUFO problem. On the one hand, rental income to the government may support the continued existence of these facilities. Presumably if the rent were high enough, the government could even make a profit. However, the C&E News article contains nothing on the economics. In fact, it seems to presume that the rental of the facilities is a losing proposition, because there is a program to petition Congress for increased funding.
My position is that the US government should not be in the business of owning facilities, which are rented to private organizations. The likelihood is that the various government agencies had availability of sufficient taxpayer funds that they decided to purchase expensive equipment, which they no longer need. Hence, their ability to allow rental time to private industry.
At the beginning of World War II, the US government could foresee a shortage of rubber for military vehicles and the need for production facilities of the newly discovered penicillin, which could be used in the field to combat soldiers' infections. In those days, government was able to operate rapidly and constructed synthetic rubber factories and penicillin production plants. At the end of the war, the facilities were sold to private industry, presumably on the premise that it was not government's business to own manufacturing units in a piece-time economy. It retained all aspects of manufacture of nuclear weapons, which is an obvious justification.
Taking a clue from our governmental predecessors, I propose that the government facilities which are being rented to private industry for its research, should be sold at public auction. The synthetic rubber and penicillin facilities were sold at the end of World War II at very low prices. This could be repeated, with the taxpayers taking the loss from the original investment, or pricing could be more consistent with present market value. If individual companies could not purchase the required facilities, they could work out the financing to develop a consortium of company ownership for the total purchase.
Interlocking Directorships
EIN News says, "Low-Carbon Power Would Deliver Just Half Required CO2 Cuts, IEA Says Decarbonizing the world's electricity supply, which in itself is an "unprecedented" challenge, would deliver a little less than half the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions necessary by 2035 to limit the eventual increase in global temperatures to two degrees Celsius, the International Energy Agency said in a report. (nasdaq.com)".
Wikipedia says the IEA (International Energy Agency ) is a Paris-based autonomous intergovernmental organization. The IEA was initially dedicated to responding to physical disruption in the supply of oil, as well as serving as an information source on statistics about the international oil market and other energy sectors. The IEA acts as a policy adviser to its member states, but also works with non-member countries. The Agency's mandate has broadened to focus on the "3Es" of sound energy policy: energy security, economic development, and environmental protection. The latter has focused on mitigating climate change. The IEA has a broad role in promoting alternate energy sources (including renewable energy), rational energy policies, and multinational energy technology co-operation.
In other words, it is one of the many international organizations set up by governments, similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which started the "end of the world" fear of rising global temperatures caused by increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
Examples of other international organizations involving government are the G8, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations. I call all of these and other similar organizations "Interlocking Directorships". The nations, which are part of the membership, are almost routinely the same from one organization to the other. This is similar to the "interlocking Directorships" we have for corporations in the US. In that case, individual companies are represented on several boards of directors.
In the case of international organizations, each of those organizations adhere to a philosophy and modus operandi of the total Interlocking Directorship. The motivation for each country within an organization is to gain power, and the individual persons representing their countries operate on that same basis, including an interest in their personal wealth.
In the case of US corporations, the situation is similar but simpler. An individual person on a company's board of directors is motivated primarily by his interest in his personal wealth. However, there is limited potential in working with that single board. The situation becomes radically different if that same person is on several boards. For example, Person A is Chairman of Board X. He is also a member of Board Y. Person B. is a member of Board X and Chairman of Board Y. Persons A and B then agree that as Chairman of their respective boards to "promote" each other's interests, with respect to voting on significantly increased salaries and bonuses for the other person. This is the system which has led to the ridiculous salaries and bonuses which are currently being received by corporate officers.
In the case of international organizations, the "Interlocking" works on the same basis, with the exception that the leadership members not only agree from one organization to the other on salaries and other benefits, but also on the philosophy and modus operandi of the total Interlocking Directorship. The philosophy is the same. If the total directorship's philosophy is to accept carbon dioxide as a global warming agent, each member organization must adhere to the same philosophy. This is very likely the basis on which the IEA has said above that decarbonizing the world's electricity supply would deliver a little less than half the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions necessary by 2035 to limit the eventual increase in global temperatures to 2° C..
The question may be raised on how the Interlocking Directorship establishes a total philosophy. This is done through the leading organization, and the leading organization is usually controlled by the national member that contributes the most money. For the Interlocking Directorship on global warming, the United States is by far the largest contributor of funds to the World Bank, the G8, United Nations, etc., in which case it establishes the Directorship's philosophy. It does so because of the misguided notion that wind and solar could replace fossil fuels as energy sources and, that in the interim, large revenue increases could be obtained through taxing CO2 emissions from fossil fuel users.
The abysmal situation of the International Interlocking Directorship on global warming is fortunately being automatically resolved. The US is already in debt and there is no longer a bottomless pit from which to obtain loans. This means the US must cut back in its contributions to each of the various international organizations that make up the Interlocking Directorship. This will mean a loss of power to the US and also a loss of its ability to establish the interlocking directorship philosophy. In all probability, the global warming philosophy will either go away or be significantly reduced.
With respect to Interlocking Directorships of US corporations, we already have an Antitrust Law, which should be able to eliminate this abuse, if the law is enforced. If the present Antitrust Law is insufficient, Congress can easily pass an amendment or new law which limits membership of a person to only one board of directors, either as a member or chairman.
Wikipedia says the IEA (International Energy Agency ) is a Paris-based autonomous intergovernmental organization. The IEA was initially dedicated to responding to physical disruption in the supply of oil, as well as serving as an information source on statistics about the international oil market and other energy sectors. The IEA acts as a policy adviser to its member states, but also works with non-member countries. The Agency's mandate has broadened to focus on the "3Es" of sound energy policy: energy security, economic development, and environmental protection. The latter has focused on mitigating climate change. The IEA has a broad role in promoting alternate energy sources (including renewable energy), rational energy policies, and multinational energy technology co-operation.
In other words, it is one of the many international organizations set up by governments, similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which started the "end of the world" fear of rising global temperatures caused by increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
Examples of other international organizations involving government are the G8, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations. I call all of these and other similar organizations "Interlocking Directorships". The nations, which are part of the membership, are almost routinely the same from one organization to the other. This is similar to the "interlocking Directorships" we have for corporations in the US. In that case, individual companies are represented on several boards of directors.
In the case of international organizations, each of those organizations adhere to a philosophy and modus operandi of the total Interlocking Directorship. The motivation for each country within an organization is to gain power, and the individual persons representing their countries operate on that same basis, including an interest in their personal wealth.
In the case of US corporations, the situation is similar but simpler. An individual person on a company's board of directors is motivated primarily by his interest in his personal wealth. However, there is limited potential in working with that single board. The situation becomes radically different if that same person is on several boards. For example, Person A is Chairman of Board X. He is also a member of Board Y. Person B. is a member of Board X and Chairman of Board Y. Persons A and B then agree that as Chairman of their respective boards to "promote" each other's interests, with respect to voting on significantly increased salaries and bonuses for the other person. This is the system which has led to the ridiculous salaries and bonuses which are currently being received by corporate officers.
In the case of international organizations, the "Interlocking" works on the same basis, with the exception that the leadership members not only agree from one organization to the other on salaries and other benefits, but also on the philosophy and modus operandi of the total Interlocking Directorship. The philosophy is the same. If the total directorship's philosophy is to accept carbon dioxide as a global warming agent, each member organization must adhere to the same philosophy. This is very likely the basis on which the IEA has said above that decarbonizing the world's electricity supply would deliver a little less than half the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions necessary by 2035 to limit the eventual increase in global temperatures to 2° C..
The question may be raised on how the Interlocking Directorship establishes a total philosophy. This is done through the leading organization, and the leading organization is usually controlled by the national member that contributes the most money. For the Interlocking Directorship on global warming, the United States is by far the largest contributor of funds to the World Bank, the G8, United Nations, etc., in which case it establishes the Directorship's philosophy. It does so because of the misguided notion that wind and solar could replace fossil fuels as energy sources and, that in the interim, large revenue increases could be obtained through taxing CO2 emissions from fossil fuel users.
The abysmal situation of the International Interlocking Directorship on global warming is fortunately being automatically resolved. The US is already in debt and there is no longer a bottomless pit from which to obtain loans. This means the US must cut back in its contributions to each of the various international organizations that make up the Interlocking Directorship. This will mean a loss of power to the US and also a loss of its ability to establish the interlocking directorship philosophy. In all probability, the global warming philosophy will either go away or be significantly reduced.
With respect to Interlocking Directorships of US corporations, we already have an Antitrust Law, which should be able to eliminate this abuse, if the law is enforced. If the present Antitrust Law is insufficient, Congress can easily pass an amendment or new law which limits membership of a person to only one board of directors, either as a member or chairman.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Afghanis Killing Afghanis is Not Our Concern
EIN News says, "35 Killed in Taliban Attack on Afghanistan Road Company. Taliban fighters attacked an Afghan road construction company before dawn Thursday, triggering gunbattles that killed 35 people and wounded another 20 in the worst single attack in months. (telegraph.co.uk)".
Take it at face value. The Taliban either did not want a new road. Or, they saw an opportunity to kill some people for more obscure reasons.
Either way, it is of no real concern to us. It does no affect our life style, whether there is a new road in Afghanistan or not. That is a decision for the Afghanis to make. If they feel strongly about it enough to kill each, that also is not our concern. Contrary to the apparent beliefs of our Federal Government, we have no reason to be in the business of nation building. Nor should we be teaching morality and ethics outside the U.S. We have enough problems with those matters here at home.
Take it at face value. The Taliban either did not want a new road. Or, they saw an opportunity to kill some people for more obscure reasons.
Either way, it is of no real concern to us. It does no affect our life style, whether there is a new road in Afghanistan or not. That is a decision for the Afghanis to make. If they feel strongly about it enough to kill each, that also is not our concern. Contrary to the apparent beliefs of our Federal Government, we have no reason to be in the business of nation building. Nor should we be teaching morality and ethics outside the U.S. We have enough problems with those matters here at home.
Local Protesters Want Us Out Of Afghanistan
EIN News says, "At Least 11 Afghans Killed As Anti-U.S. Protest Turns Violent Some 1,500 protesters poured into the streets of a northern Afghan city, shouting "to America!" and calling for justice as they clashed with security forces following an overnight NATO raid they claim killed four civilians. At least 11 people were killed as the protesters fought with police and tried to assault a NATO outpost in the city of Taloqan, the capital of Takhar province".
We can't take them exactly at their word and die, but we can get the message. 1500 Protesters against our presence is a pretty good number.
In Libya, there were protests against Qaddafi, and we supported the protesters with military assistance. There are also protests against al-Assad in Syria, and we tend to support those protesters as well.
If we go that far in Libya and nearly so in Syria, should we not at least accept what the protesters are telling us in Afghanistan? They don't want us there, and we should leave.
Some will say we need to control terrorists and training camps. We can do that by satellite surveillance and ground intelligence, followed by missile strikes. An obvious problem is that the terrorists hide behind civilians. They do that anyhow, whether we have a military presence or not. We also need to take the attitude that when civilians allow the hiding of terrorists, those civilians are complicit in the terrorist operations. We should make this clear to civilians by the usual propaganda mechanism of dropping leaflets by air. The leaflets should also contain information that the entire local population should move to a newly established campsite, which would be immune to US attack, unless it is later determined that it is also infested with terrorists, in which case the camp will be destroyed along with the civilian terrorist collaborators.
We can't take them exactly at their word and die, but we can get the message. 1500 Protesters against our presence is a pretty good number.
In Libya, there were protests against Qaddafi, and we supported the protesters with military assistance. There are also protests against al-Assad in Syria, and we tend to support those protesters as well.
If we go that far in Libya and nearly so in Syria, should we not at least accept what the protesters are telling us in Afghanistan? They don't want us there, and we should leave.
Some will say we need to control terrorists and training camps. We can do that by satellite surveillance and ground intelligence, followed by missile strikes. An obvious problem is that the terrorists hide behind civilians. They do that anyhow, whether we have a military presence or not. We also need to take the attitude that when civilians allow the hiding of terrorists, those civilians are complicit in the terrorist operations. We should make this clear to civilians by the usual propaganda mechanism of dropping leaflets by air. The leaflets should also contain information that the entire local population should move to a newly established campsite, which would be immune to US attack, unless it is later determined that it is also infested with terrorists, in which case the camp will be destroyed along with the civilian terrorist collaborators.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Questionable Savings of Fossil Fuels for the Military
In the May 2 issue, C&E News has an article entitled, "Clean Energy for the Military". It discusses the cooperation of the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense in reducing fossil fuel usage by the military through replacement with solar energy. The article quotes several comments from the Deputy Secretaries.
Deputy Secretary of Defense Lynn said, "With the limited supply of fossil fuels and rising costs, Defense needs cheaper and more abundant energy sources to power its global operations". He gave an example of a Marine patrol, which operated completely on solar power. Diesel fuel consumption was reduced by over 90%. Foot patrols using solar panels had power for a whole week and did not require the usual recharging of batteries every 48 hours.
Is the above laudable? I would say yes, except for the fact that I am primarily concerned about the effectiveness and safety of the patrol. Did it operate more or less efficiently with this reduction in use of Diesel fuel?
I am primarily interested in the US having the best military force and the greatest capability in the world. The fact that it consumes more energy than is used by two thirds of all nations worldwide, is not significant to me. I want the best. Not only to be effective in military operations but to protect our soldiers to the maximum degree of security.
Does this energy conservation do that? I have some doubts. The Obama Administration has previously shown its inability to concentrate on the most significant matters. It rather picks up on ancillary details which are much less important.
Deputy Secretary of Defense Lynn said, "With the limited supply of fossil fuels and rising costs, Defense needs cheaper and more abundant energy sources to power its global operations". He gave an example of a Marine patrol, which operated completely on solar power. Diesel fuel consumption was reduced by over 90%. Foot patrols using solar panels had power for a whole week and did not require the usual recharging of batteries every 48 hours.
Is the above laudable? I would say yes, except for the fact that I am primarily concerned about the effectiveness and safety of the patrol. Did it operate more or less efficiently with this reduction in use of Diesel fuel?
I am primarily interested in the US having the best military force and the greatest capability in the world. The fact that it consumes more energy than is used by two thirds of all nations worldwide, is not significant to me. I want the best. Not only to be effective in military operations but to protect our soldiers to the maximum degree of security.
Does this energy conservation do that? I have some doubts. The Obama Administration has previously shown its inability to concentrate on the most significant matters. It rather picks up on ancillary details which are much less important.
Your Questions of the Week
Open letter to Rep. Randy Neugebauer:
I just took a look at the replies to your last two questions of the week. It looks like the responders generally have their heads screwed on right.
67% wanted the NASA shuttle program continued. Perhaps they concluded this for emotional/nostalgic reasons, but more likely for the same reasons that I indicated in my e-mail on the subject and which you obtained a copy. That is, capability in outer space could have tremendous military significance. As it stands, if an American wants to visit the space station, he needs to ride a Russian shuttle. What if the Russians decided that it would be militarily expedient to deny American transport in the future?
92% do not believe the Sagebrush Lizard should be placed on the endangered species list. It's hard to guess why we have such a high vote, but the likelihood is that most voters have probably seen the relationship between that and the US Fish and Wildlife Service proposal to shut down oil and gas doing in Texas for two years, while the subject is studied. I covered this also in one of my previous e-mails, wherein I accused most environmental organizations of being subversive to American culture and the economy, and using gimmicks such as the Sagebrush Lizard as a reason to subvert.
I just took a look at the replies to your last two questions of the week. It looks like the responders generally have their heads screwed on right.
67% wanted the NASA shuttle program continued. Perhaps they concluded this for emotional/nostalgic reasons, but more likely for the same reasons that I indicated in my e-mail on the subject and which you obtained a copy. That is, capability in outer space could have tremendous military significance. As it stands, if an American wants to visit the space station, he needs to ride a Russian shuttle. What if the Russians decided that it would be militarily expedient to deny American transport in the future?
92% do not believe the Sagebrush Lizard should be placed on the endangered species list. It's hard to guess why we have such a high vote, but the likelihood is that most voters have probably seen the relationship between that and the US Fish and Wildlife Service proposal to shut down oil and gas doing in Texas for two years, while the subject is studied. I covered this also in one of my previous e-mails, wherein I accused most environmental organizations of being subversive to American culture and the economy, and using gimmicks such as the Sagebrush Lizard as a reason to subvert.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Eliminating NASA's Manned Space Program Weakens America Militarily
I just watched on TV the last of our NASA shuttle flights. This will terminate our ability to make manned shuttle flights to outer space. I don't know who made the decision to terminate the manned program, but it was probably the Obama Administration.
Why would we want to close down this manned program? There are a few obvious reasons. It is very expensive, and we need to cut government expenses in this time of tremendous government budget deficit and debt. But is this the place to cut?
The TV news announcer said 30,000 jobs will be cut in Florida. That could be good. Fewer government jobs. It also could be bad. More people unemployed.
What about the work that needs to be done in outer space? We already have satellites in place. The satellites can observe human happenings on earth and report same to a control Center. They collect weather information. They relay information from one place on earth to another. Do they ever malfunction? Yes. We can either repair them or substitute new ones.
Presumably, the space program will continue in a non-human way, such that we can have a shoot to deliver a replacement satellite. Is that cost-effective, or should we be considering repair? While some repairs could be made through a built-in repair system actuated by a signal, in many cases human intervention would be necessary. If my air-conditioning system doesn't work, I call in a repair man. It's more cost-effective than having a new air conditioning system, which still requires human intervention of installation.
What about military implications? Alexander the Great, the Romans, and the Persians all tried to dominate the world by military means. More recently, Germany and Japan tried to do the same thing, which led to World War II. Is that time over or are there still possibilities of recurrence? Are we absolutely sure that the Chinese and Russians have no desire to put us militarily out of business? Technology can be a tremendous advantage in a military conflict. The Russians now have the capability of delivering a man to a space station (satellite}, where he has been known to make repairs and renovations not accomplishable by remote means. I judge the Russians now have one up on us in space technology, which could give them a significant advantage.
If the idea of maintaining an effective space program based on unmanned technology is so attractive and presumably effective, why can we not expand it to other military aspects. For example, we have recently used unmanned aircraft called drones in Afghanistan. They have apparently done a good job for what they were intended and should be continued. However, does that mean we can depend on them for all military aircraft requirements? If so, can we shut down pilot training? I don't know anybody who would want to do that, but it is a clear analogy to the manned space program.
As we know, there are many subversives to American culture and economy within our own society. In fact, many believe that there are a significant number of such individuals in our federal government. One way to weaken American defense against potential economic or military aggressors is to weaken American military capability. I believe the shutdown of the manned space program decreases American military might. It should not have been done, and Congress should intervene to see that it is reinstated.
Why would we want to close down this manned program? There are a few obvious reasons. It is very expensive, and we need to cut government expenses in this time of tremendous government budget deficit and debt. But is this the place to cut?
The TV news announcer said 30,000 jobs will be cut in Florida. That could be good. Fewer government jobs. It also could be bad. More people unemployed.
What about the work that needs to be done in outer space? We already have satellites in place. The satellites can observe human happenings on earth and report same to a control Center. They collect weather information. They relay information from one place on earth to another. Do they ever malfunction? Yes. We can either repair them or substitute new ones.
Presumably, the space program will continue in a non-human way, such that we can have a shoot to deliver a replacement satellite. Is that cost-effective, or should we be considering repair? While some repairs could be made through a built-in repair system actuated by a signal, in many cases human intervention would be necessary. If my air-conditioning system doesn't work, I call in a repair man. It's more cost-effective than having a new air conditioning system, which still requires human intervention of installation.
What about military implications? Alexander the Great, the Romans, and the Persians all tried to dominate the world by military means. More recently, Germany and Japan tried to do the same thing, which led to World War II. Is that time over or are there still possibilities of recurrence? Are we absolutely sure that the Chinese and Russians have no desire to put us militarily out of business? Technology can be a tremendous advantage in a military conflict. The Russians now have the capability of delivering a man to a space station (satellite}, where he has been known to make repairs and renovations not accomplishable by remote means. I judge the Russians now have one up on us in space technology, which could give them a significant advantage.
If the idea of maintaining an effective space program based on unmanned technology is so attractive and presumably effective, why can we not expand it to other military aspects. For example, we have recently used unmanned aircraft called drones in Afghanistan. They have apparently done a good job for what they were intended and should be continued. However, does that mean we can depend on them for all military aircraft requirements? If so, can we shut down pilot training? I don't know anybody who would want to do that, but it is a clear analogy to the manned space program.
As we know, there are many subversives to American culture and economy within our own society. In fact, many believe that there are a significant number of such individuals in our federal government. One way to weaken American defense against potential economic or military aggressors is to weaken American military capability. I believe the shutdown of the manned space program decreases American military might. It should not have been done, and Congress should intervene to see that it is reinstated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
