Replies

That is not correct. I provided for the contingency of another entity attacking the United States for the sake of hateful aggression. If their only goal is to kill as many Americans as possible, then nuclear means will be their method, and I agreed that the nuclear deterrent along with an SDI system should be in place. If they are planning to invade and personally come and kill Americans, then they run into the same problem as they would if their motives were economic, with even fiercer resistance. Rifles behind every blade of grass. Certainty of death makes a man that much more willing to fight.

And yes, you are probably right that not everyone will have a gun and fight-----just like 89% of the population were appeasers and British sympathizers in the Revolutionary war. Only 11% of the populace fought for the freedom of America. If only 11% did the same today, that would still be an army of over 28 million people, many times larger than the largest professional army on earth. Plus, they would be taking the fight to us, in our own backyard. There's just no way. It would never work. Americans may be reluctant to rise against their own government today, but I have no doubts about what would happen if a foreign one forcefully invaded.

I also included some planes and subs patrolling our border if you didn't read closely enough, that should be all the weaponry neccessary to protect the physical United States.

Your "deterrent" is an overwhelming and expensive offensive military that is designed for conquest, not defense, and your method of "deterrent" is not to actually sit and deter---it is to simply attack, in advance, anyone that some Washington brain wizards deem a threat. That is 1) paranoid madness and 2) a self-fulfilling policy that begets even more enemies.

If their only goal is to kill as many Americans as possible, then nuclear means will be their method, and I agreed that the nuclear deterrent along with an SDI system should be in place.
. Al Qaeda's goal was to kill as many Americans as possible. Nuclear means was not their method. Your assumption is contradicted by reality. And a nuclear deterrent for any large scale act of terrorism against the U.S. is a rather blunt weapon.
I also included some planes and subs patrolling our border if you didn't read closely enough, that should be all the weaponry neccessary to protect the physical United States.
You may, but the author didn't. That's who I was criticizing.
and your method of "deterrent" is not to actually sit and deter---it is to simply attack, in advance, anyone that some Washington brain wizards deem a threat.
It is? Please point to the post where I advocated that. You've used the classic tactic of the extremist -- accuse anyone who disagrees with you of harboring ridiculous views. I don't generally agree with the concept of preemptive attack. But I certainly do believe in bringing death to whomever attacks us first, and to those who gave them aid. So yup, I supported getting Al Qaeda and the Taliban. About all your military could do is wave at them from a few thousand miles away while they laughed at us and planned their next strike. No thanks.