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