What else would explain this:
Australia and the United States have signed a pact to develop a controversial missile defense shield. President Bush made the project a priority after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington in 2001. But critics have questioned its cost, viability, and Australia's need for such a system.But then the lack of need - or, for that matter, the lack of proven technology - hasn't stopped BushCo. from pursuing this chimera either.
Australia's government says it need a way to protect its shores from ballistic missiles, even though at the moment the remote continent faces no threat from long-range weapons.
With militaries stretched thin already, school budgets going unfunded around the country and AIDS apparently spiraling out of control in so much of the world, is this really the best use of resources right now? Given the lack of need and the complete failure of current technology in every test, other than those rigged to provide a success, can there be any other purpose behind this tragic program other than to repay those who've been so generous with their share holders' money to conservative governments?
No comments:
Post a Comment