Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!wkb
From: wkb@cbscc.UUCP (Keith Brummett)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Re: Star Wars Defense Plan
Message-ID: <3485@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Aug-84 13:29:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.3485
Posted: Wed Aug 22 13:29:28 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Aug-84 05:01:55 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 61

(I can remain silent no longer!)

Hi folks,
   Just dropped in to give my two cents worth on Garey Fouts' article.
Actually, this is the first time I've submitted to the net even though
I read it regularly, so this submittion is as much a test as it is a
dissemination of profound thought. But anyway, here goes ...

First, let's attack the "facts":

>   "A (Boeing) 727 has a lifetime of 20-40 million hours of service. A
>   (cruise) missile has only a few minutes of life.

    Well, whipping out the ol' TI-55-II, here's what I get:

        40,000,000 hrs / (24 hrs/day) / (365 days/yr) = 4566.21 years !?!

    Son, that plane sounds rather old to me. Now about those missles.
    I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that our european cruise missles
    are still in service five years from now. With proper maintenance
    rotations, those same missles will probably last 15 to 20 years.
    Garey, you can't measure a missle's useful life by the length of
    its flight to destruction. A missle's purpose is not to destroy
    cities per se, but to say to potential antagonists: "If you try to
    molest us, we're going to kick your ass.". It can sit quietly doing
    nothing for years and still get the job done.

Next, we trash the reasoning:

>   I would like to know  the economic differences to PEOPLE between a
>   cruise missile and, say a Boeing 727. Somehow I think the airplane
>   has a greater return on investment.

>   The 727 employs a crew of at least three, and offers the service
>   of transportation to passengers/cargo. What benefit does a missile
>   give PEOPLE.

    Sure, a comercial airliner generates a better cash flow than a
    military missile, but return on investment is not the sole method
    of determining value. Insurance is one of the worst "investments"
    a person can make. You're practically throwing money down the
    drain for something you hope you'll never have to use, but I'll bet
    that you have at least life, home, and auto insurance, right? The
    benefit of military missles is that (when used properly) they allow
    us to have a society in which people are able to offer services
    such as air travel on a 727, and even better, people are free to
    take advantage of those offers with very few restrictions. Those
    missiles are our insurance.

Finally (just to adhere to proper netiquette), we slime the person:

    And just what the hell kind of place is Beaverton, Oregon anyway?
    Sounds like some kind of haven for commie-pinko liberals and
    Jane Fonda lovers to me.  :-)


                                          Keith Brummett
                                          cbosgd!cbscc!wkb
                                           AT&T-NS / Bell Labs
    "Oh well, you'll get over it."        Columbus, Ohio