Eric posted the address of some more 'reading for [me] to scoff at.' I went to the site and read it carefully, looking for evidence that Clinton had 'sold MIRV technology to the Chinese.' The topic was not even addressed. (The Heritage Foundation, is, as these things go, a moderate organization, moderate compared with some. In this article, MIRV technology is considered in light of 'China's emerging missile threat' (the setting is the late 1990s). Clinton is accused of adhering too closely to existing treaties, not of malfeasance, corruption, duplicity, or underhandedness. Eric has now shifted the subject from his original claim to the broader topic of China's missile capabilities vis-a-vis the US. His original claim was the one I challenged him on. As for wanting MIRV technology (if you're uncertain about just what this is, Eric will explain it to you), one reason the Chinese may have wanted it (aside from national pride, paranoia, wanting to keep up with the world's greatest superpower) is that it would have countered the obscenely expensive and embarrasingly unworkable Star Wars program, a favorite of Conservative patriots for years. Why would the Chinese have wanted that? Because they were suspicious of the US, and unwilling to give US first-trike capability. Could it be that Clinton was trying to save us from ourselves? Could this be why this single distortion sticks in the minds of True Believers? (Just kidding.) Let me repeat. 'The Chinese wanted Western missile technology' does not entail 'Clinton sold MIRV technology to the Chinese.' Not only is the latter claim false, it is meaningless. Changing the subject is, I grant, a common form of 'argument.' From the Heritage site <http://www.heritage.org/Research/MissileDefense/BG1303.cfm>: 'A defensive response would be the most effective way to address the China's emerging missile threat. Doing so, however, would require that the existing program to develop and test the Navy Theater-Wide missile defense system be accelerated and expanded. The system should be upgraded to make it capable of intercepting long-range missiles in their ascent phase, before individual warheads and decoys could be released. Responding to the missile threat from China also requires that the Clinton Administration's decision in 1993 to cancel the space-based interceptor development program be reversed. This system, when deployed, would have an inherent capability to defend against long-range missiles in the boost phase. 'The problem is that the Clinton Administration, *because of its policy of observing the now-defunct ABM Treaty*, is effectively blocking much-needed progress in both programs. In the case of space-based interceptors, the Administration has no program whatsoever. The alarming developments regarding China's use of U.S. nuclear and missile technology to modernize its strategic forces means there is no time to waste. The United States urgently needs to develop and deploy both the Navy Theater-Wide and space-based interceptor systems to address the emerging threat from China, or it runs the risk of being blackmailed by China with missiles designed with stolen U.S. technology.' Is this is meant to be evidence supporting Eric's initial claim, the claim that several of us questioned? The subtext here is that Clinton sold MIRV technology? Robert Paul The Reed Institute ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html