Replies

So what will WE do about it? I know you to favor a fortress America approach. Isn't that likely to speed the roll back (of Freedom, that is)? We'll have a fine time trying to deal with it when only a small enclave around the USA are still free. My approach is one never before tried. Instead of cowering in our corner, let us hit the beast face on. The way we should have in '45 in E. Europe, in '52 in the PRC, in '65 in Indochina, and, of course, in a number of other particular places and times. How can you criticise an approach that have never even been tried? The approach is the proactive destruction of all enemies of Western Civilization. You know what this means. I know you do.

The Final Phase

How can you criticise an approach that have never even been tried? The approach is the proactive destruction of all enemies of Western Civilization. You know what this means. I know you do.

Sure I know what this means. Launching pre-emptive nuclear strikes against all our enemies weaker than us--namely the rogue states of Communist China, Iran, Syria, Libya, and some would say Iraq. Nuking our enemies is not the way that God would have us go. Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate. You cannot annihilate entire civilizations and their innocent populations and hope to still be saved in the Kingdom of our God. This is the madness that the Bushies are now preaching. Even as they dismantle virtually our entire strategic nuclear deterent and de-alert most of what's left to make the world safe for a nuclear first strike on the US by the superior offensive and defensive nuclear forces of the Russian Federation, the Bushies want to build and deploy micronukes which they hope to use against rogue states.

While I have no problem with this idea in theory as long as it is confined to purely military targets, using tacnukes against our enemies would merely serve to guarantee that they are used against us beginning with our tens of thousands of troops (and ships) stationed abroad occupying countries and regions whose populations rightly view them as occupying armies. We almost tried this before when we began implementing the Morgonthau Plan whose goal was to so deindustrialize post-war Germany as to reduce them to an agricultural subsistence level which was intended to result in the deaths of two thirds of the German population or the planned murder by starvation of 40 million lives. That would have made Churchill and Truman worse than Hitler and Stalin and almost as bad as the greatest mass murderer of all time the Satanic disciple himself, Mao Tse Tung. We must always remmber you cannot fight evil with evil.

I know you to favor a fortress America approach.

Not quite true. I favor a Fortress Americas approach in which the US invades moves against, embargoes and isolates any enemy nation in its hemisphere such as invading Cuba and retaking the Panama Canal from Communist China reoccupying it with 10,000 troops. I would also create a large force of Border Troops to guard our borders from incursions by illegal immigrants and terrorists and authorize the creation of Immigration Police to identify and expel all illegal immigrants from this country, which are perhaps the single greatest source of crime and terrorism in this country.

Meanwhile, abroad we would pursue the same strategy as the British Empire, which was to preserve the balance of power by preventing any combination of nations from challenging us as a superpower, which would entail cutting off entirely our constant stream of trade, aid, credits, and military technology and supercomputers to Communist China which are building it into the best nuclear superpower enemy that money can buy. This would weaken our growing global peer competitor, the Sino-Russian alliance by depriving them of the funds to build up their nuclear and conventional forces.

The US would also play to its strengths (as the British Empire did in the 18th and 19th centuries) by using its superior naval and airpower to deter aggression and threaten our enemies and if necessary engage in attacks to repel invasions using the ground forces of our allies rather than our own forces, thus minimizing to the greatest extent possible the loss in US lives. I might favor keeping our troops in Korea if we were to pull them back to a more defensible and survivable position in the Pusan peninsula out of DPRK SRBM range where they could not be overrun by invading forces.

I am divided on keeping our troops in NATO, now an imperialist aggressor alliance rather than a defensive won, which is in the process of being completely neutralized by the entry of Communist dominated Eastern European countries including the KGB led Russian Federation. I oppose NATO, which was bothersome as an entagling alliance all along, but having the Eurocorps replace it does not suit me either.

Lastly and most importantly, I would build a massive national missile defense system on land, the sea and in space potent enough to shoot down the entire nuclear arsenal of all of our enemies if fired simultaneously and extend this nuclear umbrella to all of our allies. I would retain all 6000 of our remaining strategic nuclear weapons--deployed and at full readiness to deter nuclear war and preserve our superpower status and I would threaten their use pro-actively against the aggression of rogue states abroad.