It's a Time to Choose....yet again!
Posted on 10/10/2006 6:53:04 PM PDT by Paul Ross
It's a Time to Choose....yet again!
Why spend trillions on a missile defense when a missile or two properly place could solve all the problems.
Honestly, I was just thinking the same thing while reading this article. My feeling though, is that there exists no man in America today who would ever use a nuke in a 'first strike' situation. I say this because there are so very few men left. Political correctness has neutered them all.
It's easier to take out the source of fissile material.
No, that would be two reactors in North Korea.
1. capable of being split or divided; cleavable.
2. Physics. a. fissionable.
b. (of a nuclide) capable of undergoing fission induced by low-energy neutrons, as uranium 233 and 235.
What you call a U.S. Missile taking out the main militray HQ in North Korea?
A good start.
ops4
Militarily, yes, politically, no. NK was allowed to build those reactors on the stipulation that they were to be used for peaceful purposes. That agreement has been violated. We now have justification to remove them.
Say hello to President Hillary Clinton. Raises the stakes in 2008, doesn't it?
Wrong.
You're forgetting, not just Iran, Venezuela (Chavez has extreme Communist Empire ambitions as well and wishes to nuclearize just as Iran is), Pakistan (constantly teetering on becoming Jihadistan with one well-placed bullet) etc...and the primary puppet-masters behind all this: The neo-soviet Russian Federation of Putin and the Chi-Comms.
The problem is far vaster and more treacherous than you are surmising. The Russian leadership and Chinese leadership truly intend, not just wish for, the destruction of the U.S. as a power of any kind. They truly are working extremely hard towards that end. And they will use their entire arsenals when they feel they can get away with it.
Notice that during all this...W is racing to unilaterally disarm our strategic forces. Neville Chamberlain would be proud.
Meanwhile, the Russians aren't doing squat to disarm. Instead they are busily beavering away at a whole slew of new strategic weapons...from ICBMs, SLBMs, Naval technology, Air Superiority aircraft and missiles...as are the Chi-Comms. All awaiting the day when the tables have finally turned because of the smug hubris of the West's ongoing Defense Holiday.
First, it isn't trillions. That's STANDARD LEFT-WING PROPAGANDA. Stop repeating it if you purport to be conservative. Thousands of Brilliant Pebble launchers could have been orbitally deployed and operated for around $20 billion more than 17 years ago. The existing Aegis cruisers could be converted over to carrying the SM-3s with an improved upper stage (SM-3 Flight IIa) for less than a couple billion. 22 additional dedicated Aegis NMD missile defense cruisers could be put on order for around 10 billion. A network of PAC-3s around all the major U.S. cities and coastal U.S. could be accomplished for around $15 billion...dealing with high (ship-fired intermediate ballistics) and low (cruise-missile) threats.
Second. China and Russia have mutual defense pacts to nuke whoever nukes them or their buddies. North Korea and Iran are definitely under their protections already. No ifs and no buts. Their UN campaign of political interference, with outright vetoes of sanctions makes it quite clear where the chips lay...
So what you are really up against is not just some pissant little crack-pot in Pyongang. We are looking at Moscow and Beijing. That's why nothing has been done by an Administration which won't openly admit what the problem...what reality... is. Under your approach, we are looking squarely at WW-III.
Haven't you wondered at all about W's failure to already have taken down the undeniable threats of Iran and North Korea?
Documents? Links to back this up....?
Another long-standing left-wing shibboleth argued against doing the right thing... But at least you are apparently admitting we should be defending against them right?!??
That is not to say these "terrorist" tactics can't happen and aren't a real threat... But as a strategic threat, those approaches are clearly the lesser threat...but can be easily managed with the national will to do so. These particular threats are cureable with simple border enforcement: with beefed up border fence/guards and coast guard to deal with hostile entry issues. And as for commercial-entry subterfuge intermediate port screening of inbound traffic in offshore transhipment inspection facilities...loading all the imports onto U.S. ships (long proposed by the real security experts and logistics firms...but continuously stone-walled by the White House) ends your surmised low-tech threats. And it wouldn't cost the government any taxes on the populace as a whole. Just the import lobby.
Unfortunately...that is something this Administration has proven it doesn't want to do because of its illicit North American Union/Globalist Trade Bloc ambitions. In their perverse value system ...American national sovereignty is "outdated" and "passe".
Burden of proof is on you to dispute me. I have long proved these things.
OK, Professor, start by offering up one of your "proofs"...and lay off the caffeine a little this morning, willya?
I miss Mr. Reagan.
The amazing thing is that this is even a debate. How can anyone oppose a system that cannot target civilians, can only be used to destroy missiles that have already been fired as an act of aggression, and can do nothing other than increase the chances that such a missile will not kill thousands (or millions) of innocent souls?!?
Perhaps you should like to read this:
The Dangerous Path of Nuclear Disarmament
Christopher Ruddy
Monday, Jan. 14, 2001Incredibly, in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. and the danger of an India-Pakistan nuclear war, the administration is continuing the Clinton strategic disaster of unilateral U.S. nuclear disarmament.
In fact, the Bush administration is going far beyond plans by the Clinton administration to cut nuclear weapons.
While I strongly support President Bush and applaud the job he has done in the wake of 9-11, I most strongly disagree with the course he, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others in the administration are taking to unilaterally destroy our nuclear arsenal.
What are defense strategists in the Bush administration thinking?
Common sense and 40 years of Cold War experience make it clear that unilateral nuclear disarmament would put at risk every American, as well as the citizens of all democracies.
Yet unilateral nuclear disarmament is precisely the policy the U.S. government appears to be following.
During the 2000 campaign, then-Governor Bush promised unilateral nuclear arms cuts, but only in tandem with the deployment of ballistic missile defense shields. That may make sense.
But it's clear that after being elected, President Bush is seeking massive cuts of nuclear weapons.
Last year the administration called for the early destruction of America's MX "Peacekeeper" missiles.
These are the backbone of our land-based nuclear deterrent and the most modern ICBMs in our arsenal – ones built by President Reagan at great political and financial cost.
In recent proposals to Congress, the Bush administration is now calling for expediting the changeover of our ballistic missile-carrying Trident submarines into platforms only for conventional cruise missiles.
Like much else that is wrong with U.S. defense policy today, it all began under Clinton.
The idea was that with the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the emergence of the U.S. as the world's sole remaining superpower, suddenly Russia and China were our friends and we no longer needed a massive nuclear arsenal, which at the height of the Cold War included over 25,000 tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.
Based on that theory, Bill Clinton reduced our tactical nuclear arsenal by over 90 percent and banned the creation of any new nuclear weapons. Almost the entire tactical nuclear arsenal was destroyed during the Clinton years.
While unilateral nuclear disarmament might make sense in a truly peaceful world, it is extremely dangerous in the face of the multiple threats the U.S. now faces.
Russia, for instance, continues to build ICBMs, notably their state-of-the-art TOPOL-M, which is far superior to any weapon in our arsenal.
Despite the Soviet 'collapse', the Russians have maintained approximately 6,000 strategic nuclear warheads.
And there is no telling how many of the smaller, tactical nuclear weapons they have. During the Reagan years, it was believed Russia had stockpiled some 50,000 such weapons.
A few years ago, a Reuters report cited French intelligence as saying Russia still maintained 20,000 tactical nuclear weapons.
If true, this gives Russia today a tremendous advantage over us, and makes that country the greatest nuclear power on Earth.
Even if Russia was not a worry, there is China.
Communist China's nuclear arsenal will likely grow massively in the next few years, with more than 250 intercontinental nuclear missiles and new nuclear missile submarines – no doubt aimed at America.
China has already threatened to launch these weapons at the U.S. if we interfere with its plans to reassert control over Taiwan.
Additionally, there is the growing Muslim terrorist threat to America and the increasing likelihood that Arab terrorist states like Iraq, Iran and Syria will soon have nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles if they don't have them already.
As America seeks unilateral reductions, at least a dozen nations now have nuclear weapons – including India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa and Israel. Up to twenty other nations could have nuclear weapons in the next decade.
For 40 years – from the inception of the Cold War with Russia after World War II until the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1990 – U.S. nuclear deterrence has kept the peace.
Now our nuclear arsenal has been cut back to the point that if Russia launched a first strike at the U.S., most of our nuclear forces would be devastated, leaving just a handful of Trident submarines to retaliate with.
That's enough to give any concerned America nightmares, and reason enough to end the deconstruction of our nuclear arsenal.
A peaceful world in which all men are brothers is a wonderful dream, but it simply isn't reality no matter how much the liberal establishment says it is.
In the real world of multiple threats to our nation and nuclear superpowers like Russia, which have thousands of nuclear weapons targeting all of our cities, we need to maintain the world's most powerful nuclear arsenal and end the madness of unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Yes. And Caspar Weinberger too. They had a lot of solid, common sense apparently missing in the Capitol today...
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.