"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message
...
That is the kind of assumption that made the old ditty about "assume
makes
an 'ass' out of 'you and me'" accurate. That these folks have an
*opinion*
about such topics well outside their respective areas of expertise is
understandable--that some folks place undue confidence in such opinions
merely because of who they are is not.

Brooks

well firstly we dont know what their areas of expertise are
but from my point of view, their expressed opinion is merely common sense

Mileage may differ.


why spend money on a system which is at best technically difficult to
achieve at all, with any degree of reliability. And, more to the point of
this discussion, barely relevant to Australias Defence needs. Money would
be
better spend going elsewhere.

I suspect that any money Australia spends will likely be spent in Australia.
As to Australian needs, you might want to reconsider that rather large and
sometimes prickly neighbor to your north.


September 11 showed that if/when an attack comes from a rogue state, I
seriously doubt it will come by way of a ballistic missile.

Huh? More accurately what 9-11 showed was that attacks could come by any
number of means, and not being prepared can be very dangerous indeed. The
world of military threat analysis is predicated upon two principles--the
most likely enemy course of action (COA), and the most *dangerous* enemy
COA. Smart commanders are prepared to deal with both. I'd posit that
incoming ballistic missiles ranks up there with the latter.

Probably more by
way of a shipping container or small boat - or some other way yet
imagined,
against which, NMD is going to just be nothing more than an expensive
paperweight.

Gee, then I guess your philosophy is, "Why bother with *any* defenses
against any form of attack whatsoever?" Because you can make the statement
that no matter where you dedicate your resources, another means of enemy
attack might circumvent that effort. Why bother with beefing up your customs
inspections procedures against your SCAS (Shipping Container Attack
System... ) if it means the bad guys may just lob a missile instead?Sorry,
but that kind of roll-over-and-just-give-up approach just does not make much
sense to me.


On a seperate and different note, and at the risk of being called an anti
semite, israel and its supporters have a dirty little habit of using this
same sort of excuse, by attacking anyone who critisizes their policies as
being "unqualified" or "lacking the qualifications" to effect a critizism.

Huh? Where in the hell did *that* come from?


as if lacking a qualification automatically makes ones opinions incorrect,
regardless of the fact that they may be right ....
I'd wonder what the voting system would look like if votes were counted in
such a way, and how many people could be eligible to vote and those that
couldnt ...

No, but neither do the opinions of Nobel laureate economists, medical
doctors, and the like merit any greater consideration than that of the
rank-and-file citizenry when it comes to issues outside their area of
specialization.


Historys littered with people like that
Italian Philosopher Bruno for example - burnt at the stake - had NO
qualifications.

I am "assuming" that the last was an example of sleep-deprived keyboard
rambling, 'cause your point, if there is one, is rather obscure.

Brooks