Ed, I'll bet there are political hacks on both sides using this tragedy for their political agendas. Conservatives will use it, and liberals will, too. Bush-Cheney will certainly use it, and so will their opponents. People who expect otherwise from the political establishment are not gaming in the real world, IMHO.

But that's a discussion best left for the Current Events board - or possibly the Flame Board.

I agree that a shield that is more expensive than what it defends against can be, up to a certain point, feasible and justifiable. The main difference between NMD and bullet-proof vests seems to be that the vests work and NMD doesn't. Not sure if that makes me a PhD wargamer or not, though my impression is that you offered that as a comment on the authors of the articles I excerpted.

We can argue all next year about whether NMD will work or not. I've read the arguments on both sides of the issue, and the ones that make sense (to me) say that it doesn't. I think those who support NMD - not you, but Rumsfeld and the Pentagon - have to convince Congress and the American people that NMD will work. So far, they haven't.

Americans Down on...

Because America claims to be a democracy, a consensus in favor of NMD must be built. (These are mega-billions of American tax-dollars being spent, after all.) The best way to build that consensus is to show that NMD works. Because scientists work from the 'show me' principle, and NMD has performed dismally in the 'show me' department, scientists are also unconvinced. The best way to convince them is provide a better design, or better technologies, or both, and show that NMD will work. That hasn't happened so far.

That's what I would call gaming in the real world.

When it does happen, as I've already stated, pro-NMD people will be able to add at least one more supporter to their ranks: me.

Now are you seriously telling me that you couldn't tell from my opening post that I was not in favor of NMD?