what is the difference between Bush's National Missile Defense program and Reagan's SDI program?
404464
They are both imposable dreams with different names.Gonna take a lot of years and a lot of billions to see if the thing will work.
579192
Info may be found here:\n\nhttp://www.swrfi.org/news/news%20021906.htm
1140013
yes, when Reagan was the president. (means for making Biological weapons too) I think Russia supported Iran at the time.
98670
Eisenhower spoke at the dedication of the Robert A. Taft Memorial Bell tower.  \n\nThe day before that, on April 13, a letter was delivered in Moscow from Eisenhower to Khrushchev about the discontinuation of nuclear weapons testing - could this be the issue you are looking for?  I have attached a copy of that letter.  I hope this helps.
858347
Pg. 51 of the PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (published in September 2000, which otherwise calls for the dramatic build up of military forces and for a climate of multi-theater wars) states: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor." \nhttp://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenationalsecurity.htm\n\nThis is what they are upto now\nhttp://www.newamericancentury.org/iran-20040224.htm\n\nSomething like 12 of the 16 founding members of PNAC were or are in the Bush administration....These guys have the power.
935471
The Civil War, the Cold War, and some nifty little operations like when Grenada was taken.  American students were there and would likely have been killed.  The public didn't even hear about it until the U.S. military had taken control of the island and rescued  the students.  Reagan took care of that with executive authority.\n\nThe Demonrats of old were not pacifists.  The party is not the same as it was then.  So your statement about the past is not relevant to the parties of today.\n\nClinton never solved anything after terrorist acts or dealt with the Middle East problems the whole 8 yrs he was in the Oval Office.  Oh... wait... .he was too busy.\n\nAt least Bush is trying to deal with the situation in Iraq.... and given enough time has a chance to resolve it.  That is.... if peace can ever be brought to the Middle East.  If not.... no Demonrat could do any better.  They are quick to criticize, but offer no plans of their own.  Their "plan" but be to just pretend it isn't there and it will go away.\n\nSue
529803
The Star Wars missile deflecting system made out of magic by Ronald Reagan. (and we think Bush is dumb)
1163589
Good site that explains it.\n\nhttp://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid14_gci549024,00.html
1146633
Kissmygozilla....right they usually do not name them for someone alive but the Reagan (CVN76) was named while Ronnie was still alive. Plus another is George HW Bush (CVN77) is currently being built.
74229
There is a lot more to homeland security than Bush. Lots of good agents doing a good job. Even in Clinton's time many, many attacks were thwarted, so it isn't fair to give all the credit to bush.
489634
Your argument is belied by cold, hard facts: Under Reagan's policies, the US had one of only two really decent growth periods since the mid sixties.\n\nAfter Reagan, we went into slow decline under Bush and Clinton, whose economic policies were largely the same; big, intrusive government controlling our economic choices.\n\nThen, for a short time, the Federal government was crippled by the struggle between Clinton and a Republican Congress, so that there was little new economic regulation and some very Reaganesque deregulation. This also turned out to be the only other period of significant growth. \n\nThen the second Bush took over, and our economic policies became, again, what they were under his father and under pre-Republican Clinton...and we've returned to the "slow decline".\n\nInstead of whining for MORE socialist violation of your choices, you should be arguing for an elimination of the government meddling we suffer under during EVERY period of economic decline.\n\nOh, and remember that unions ARE monopolies, and are bad for all concerned...not only for the companies, and the consumers (who are everyone), but even for workers.\n\nYour highway theory is sheer nonsense; understand that the Highway Fund, financed by the huge Federal gas tax, HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN SURPLUS. But Congress cheats, spending the "trust fund" surplus on things other than transportation. \n\nThe Reagan tax cuts...and anyone who doesn't know this reveals their ignorance of the topics at hand...actually INCREASED government revenue, by (along with deregulation) boosting economic growth, which became truly positive for the first time in nearly twenty years.\n\nNote, too, that you are apparently ignorant of how bad things were BEFORE Reagan. We were in a FAST economic decline throughout all of the seventies, and in fact most "experts" claimed the US could never recover, and was going to lose its position as the global economic power to the Soviet Union and Japan. Thanks to Reagan's reduction in government regulation and taxes, and his reduction of strife with the Soviets...allowing the inevitable failure of socialism to become the focus of the people of that evil empire...this did not happen.
615945
these are not 'bush claims'.  rather they are boasts from the iranian government itself, and reports/warnings from the IAEA.
292686
An assasination attempt, social security nearly collapsed and he gave the agency huge bailout funding, his tax cutting policies caused a huge financial deficit and he had to find ways to cut federal spending. There were so many problems concerning American veterans that he had to form a new federal agency for veterans affairs, and the Iranian hostage crisis was happening as he was inaugurated. The Iranians refused to deal with Jimmy Carter. This single event caused a huge military buildup for the United States to begin. Also the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger was a big setback for NASA and Reagan's "Starwars" plan for nuclear defense
1116836
In reference to another post there is no working star wars program in place, we are just as vulnerable to a missile attack today as we were fifty years ago, now the likelihood of a large scale nuclear attack is much much lower without the soviets runnin around, though it is always possible that by some computer error that a launch will take place from either us or the russian silos, afterwards if we don't convince each other that it was a mistake it would probably lead to a full scale nuclear exchange, now that covers the U.S. and Russia, but don't forget the other nuclear nations out there such as Pakistan and India which are pretty much where the U.S. and Soviets were twenty years ago, so on that side of the planet I would say within the next two years that there is a 20% possibility of a nuclear exchange barring any massive change in policy or major event such as some sort of military incident betweent those two countries. It is possible that there could be a nuclear device smuggled and detonated in the U.S. by some terrorist organisation but that would not lead to a nuclear war, unless the perpetrators of such an attack posessed a nuclear arsenal. Let me just say that with today's great technology a nuclear device does not have to be any bigger than a briefcase and with lax border control and nearly unlimited funding for terrorist organisations in addition to lack of intelligence on nuclear material around the world it is very possible that some terrorist organisation may suceed in detonating a device on American soil. Let's all hope that never happens
557708
Jimmy Carter. Reagan took office in '81.
308022
I would say that the biggest similarity is that they were all presidents of the US during a domestic crisis. Hoover had to try to fix the great depression if memory serves me well, and Carter had to deal with the backlash of Watergate and backlash from the Iran Hostage issue. Finally, Reagan had to deal with the economic depression with his major government spending and Reaganomics. One could also argue that all of them were similar because of there materialism and failure of their social programs.
665066
Go to:\n\nwww.ucsusa.org/global_security\n/space_weapons/satellite_database.html