Replies

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.

We must have been separated at birth, your post is a startegy for national defense that (gasp), would actually work. Imagine a FREE, STRONG<, safe America. Wow, what a concept. You would think someone in Washington would espouse a similar defense doctrine.... yeah right.

The only thing I would add would be aggressive R&D into new, better nuclear weapons; ie. withdrawal from the Test Ban treaty. It is not healthy to sit on your laurels and believe that your wonder bombs will always be the best, you must keep developing better ones, or somebody will eventually beat you to it.