I'm with you as far as improving missile defense to ensure security.
I do not believe your advice of using a show of force doctrine of deterrence would be wise or effective. It seems to me you think we have an inexhaustible supply of bullets to shoot at "missiles" destined to splash in the water. You also don't grasp the value of having an enemy estimate versus confirming our capabilities. You will get lots of folks around here to praise you for your ideas, however you can have the armchair generals. I have no doubts that we did the right thing on 4 July.
Good.
I do not believe your advice of using a show of force doctrine of deterrence would be wise or effective.
There is always room for someone to disagree with common sense, eh?
It seems to me you think we have an inexhaustible supply of bullets to shoot at "missiles" destined to splash in the water.
No, I don't. But we do need to have an appropriate moment to announce the implementation of the strategic "paradigm shift" that Reagan so vividly described, a switch from the Mutual Assured Destruction mentality, to Assured Survival. Anyways, we should have many thousands of these missiles for what has been squandered on the ground based interceptor component. And the Brilliant Pebbles program...with thousands of orbiting sentries... could have been deployed and operational all for $11 billion.
You also don't grasp the value of having an enemy estimate versus confirming our capabilities.
No, again, you're failing to seperate and distinguish the need for operational security, and the opposed necessity for a certain degree of publicity as to capability for deterrent and other purposes...such as the embarassment of North Korea and Iran helping promote regime changes.
You will get lots of folks around here to praise you for your ideas, however you can have the armchair generals.
I am not talking about armchair generals. Caspar Weinberger espoused this very approach, as have others.
I have no doubts that we did the right thing on 4 July.
I do.