Bush's Comanche Defense Policy

Washington was rudely awakened on September 11, 2001. The attacks on the World Trade Centers showed just how vulnerable America really was. The country had no defense against an ultimate attack.

Bush had already resumed defense concerns when he took office. After 9/11 he revived the Star Wars concept, reasserting that defense outweighed aggression. He has worked to reduce nuclear proliferation, and, more importantly, to create an anti-ballistic missile system. Rumsfeld announced in June, 2001 that America would build such a system. The following year (December 2002) Bush announced that the system would be operable by 2004. We’re not there yet.

“Peace” activists have campaigned against the system. ‘Noble’ (or is that Nobel?) scientists have raged against it; government have authorities debate it; commentators have analyze it. But the nuclear missile business is here to stay. There will be two kinds of missiles: the nuclear warhead, and the anti-nuclear missile. One will destroy cities; the other will destroy missiles. Reagan preferred the latter, because he understood the superiority of defense.

Professional pacifists, however, would rather risk slaughter, and they campaigned hard against Reagan’s “unnecessary” war mongering. To their mind, there is no difference between aggression and defense. Reagan said America would never be the aggressor, but was therefore the more obligated to have strong defense. The argument has never abated.

bump

If the US has a good shield defense, we don't have to be concerned with countries like Iraq or Iran having nukes.

Well, that's not exactly true, and another way that liberals argue against the system. It cannot protect us against "suitcase" nukes, very short-range attacks, and/or terrorist attacks like 9-11 (and as such, liberals whine incorrectly that it must be useless... it has a purpose, but it is only against long-range missiles).

Oh, this time, make sure that the shields only work for US territory. And our real friends. No need to shield anybody else who don't like us.

Highly unlikely that your attitude would extend to national policy. If a nuke is launched, and we can knock it down, we almost certainly will... even if it targets Cuba, China, or that Satanic rock in Mecca. (Of course, liberals, as they always do, will blame us either way... either we failed to knock it down, or we didn't try, and are therefore responsible for the deaths, or we did knock it down, but the exposure to risk of harm to those underneath the missil fragments is unacceptable, and we must prostrate ourselves for them instead. *sigh* Yeah, these buffoons are Patriots. Uh-huh.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.