WAR BY IQ

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: THE LAST IQ TEST?

NUCLEAR WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY REFLECTS IQ DATA. THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT HAVE ENGINEERS THAT ARE SO MUCH SMARTER THAN CHINESE OR RUSSIAN ENGINEERS THAT THEY CAN MAKE AMERICA INFINITELY SAFE AND RUSSIA AND CHINA INFINITELY VULNERABLE. IF AN AMERICAN ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE  DEFENSE PROGRAM CAUSES RUSSIA AND CHINA TO PUT THE PLATFORM FOR OFFENSIVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN SPACE, AMERICA WILL BE MORE VULNERABLE THAN IT IS NOW. 

Continuing the contest to develop superiority in strategic nuclear weapons is bound to lead to increasing vulnerability for the American people. The argument
rests on IQ data. See my book: Nuclear Weapons and the Blue-eyed People.
        Richard R. Peppe

"instituting sweeping missile defense"

Print the article

This entry was posted on 11/30/2007 9:59 PM and is filed under Nuclear weapons.

"Instituting sweeping missile defense" is a phrase that appears in the November 30,2007 Wall Street Journal in an editorial page piece about Fred Thompson by Kimberly A. Strassel. He would like to do it.

Where to begin? Simple. The role of engineering talent.

In 1950 America did not need a missile defense, no one had intercontinental missiles. The U.S. was the first country to fasten them into a military reality. She used that to make Russia and China vulnerable. But after some period of time, Russia and then China developed a real world capability to strike the U.S. with missiles. Clearly, something did not work out to give America more security in the real world. The U.S. became vulnerable after she had made Russia and China vulnerable.

Engineering talent made Russia and China vulnerable. Later, engineering talent made the U.S. vulnerable.    

The candidates that are pushing missile defense should be asked one question: What if your ambition to create a dense system for the U.S., while maintaining an offensive system that makes Russia and China vulnerable, results in Russia and China creating offensive systems in space that will "crowd" America's defensive system? What if that means that the time to correct a mistake moves from an hour to ten minutes?

r peppe

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments
    • No comments exist for this entry.
Leave a comment

Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Enter the above security code (required)

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.