Replies

RE:#149.

Sounds like a con game of Clintonian proportions to me.

Hardly.

You make many generalizations and content, that President Bush is an incompetent Commander in Chief. Nothing could be further from the truth. Your remarks have been noted for the record, but its an opinion that few people, in or out of government agree with.

It's my opinion, this is just typical Bush bashing.

RE:#152.

You make some good points on defense related issues.

>>>Your moniker is an interesting misapplication.

First you attack the President and then you make an incorrect assumption about my screen name. Hmmm. Contrary to your remarks, I never said America shouldn't be vigilant, quite the opposite is true. I also never said, there wasn't a need to increase spending on DoD related matters, over and above the levels the President is submitting. After all, the main purpose of the federal government is to serve, protect and defend the American people, from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. So I support a pro-active approach to improving America's military, from R&D, right up through the best weapon systems and programs available. The very best that money can buy.

The President just submitted his second budget since taking office. Bushes first budget for 2002, shows an increase in defense spending to $336 billion. His 2003 budget raises that to $368 billion. That doesn't get us to the spending levels seen during the Reagan years, but its a robust upward trend. An 8.6% increase, is significant. Next year Bush has budgeted a 5.6% increase, but I expect that will go up substantially, considering the the war on terrorism will be expanding.

Never claimed he was incompetent. Rather that it appears he is willfully derelict in some key portions of his duty. The surmise is that he is just faithfully following his father's dogma about a new world order. As for your opinions about numbers of people not agreeing, that does not make them...or you... right. 75% of the people polled think we already have a missile defense shield. And they get angry when told we in fact never deployed even a squirtgun. So it would simply appear I have a big job ahead to educate them about GWB.

As for being a Bush-basher, I voted for him over Gore, I paid big bucks to get him in, then he 'Moved On' and ignored his oath of office and failed to prosecute the outgoing criminals, and submitted a completely and totally inadequate defense budget...and attacked the DOD JCS who had told him honestly what they needed. And he continued the appeasement and trade deficit policies with China. (As Dick Cheney would say, "BIG TIME") He even allowed the DOJ to run interference for their little spy, Wen Ho Lee, and continued, in effect, the Clintonian cover-up, and smearing of Notra Trulock.

I won't be fooled again. I will focus purely on getting conservatives into Congress and worry about the Presidency only when an authentic conservative runs. Sorry to say, that does not appear to be GWB. That he has been a disappointment is an understatement. And for me, the last straw was his traitorous 'Moscow Treaty.' So don't ask me or anyone else to feel proud of him again, or support the rascal. He is no Reagan. And if you were really a Reaganite you would know it in your bones, and not be sticking up for him.

There were 25,000 Soviet strategic missiles, targeted at the US during the Cold War. Today, there are fewer then 7,000 and that will soon be down to 1700-2200. The Red Chinese have anywhere from 18 to 50 missiles that could reach California. May be. The British and the French have no reason to attack us with nuclear weapons. Just who should America be afraid of? Korea? India? Pakistan? Iraq? Iran? These countries don't have strategic capabilities that could reach the US. I doubt a rogue nation or terrorist group could get their hands on an ICBM. May be a tactical nuke, may be a dirty bomb, but not a strategic WMD.

Your statements here on the nuclear threat go way beyond the realm of mere ignorance. First of all you seem not to know the difference between missiles and warheads. The Russians NEVER had 25,000 missiles pointed at the US and they most certainly do not have 7000 today. In fact, they never had more than 2000-2300 strategic missiles even at the height of the Cold War. Today, they have 40,000 nuclear warheads, but only about 1500 strategic missiles according to Jane's Defense Weekly with at least 6000 of those warheads being strategic. The US on the other hand has only 932 strategic missiles including 432 Trident I and II SLBMs and 500 obselescent Minuteman III ICBMs and a total of about 6000 strategic warheads. The Moscow Treaty does not limit the number of launchers or missiles on either side. It only limits the number of deployed strategic warheads to 2200 on ONE SINGLE DAY--December 31, 2012. So the Russians could have 6000-7000 strategic warheads deployed on December 30, 2012 download their MIRV'd missiles down to 2200 on the 31st and upload them back to 6000-7000 on January 1st, 2013 and still be in full compliance with the treaty. Since this treaty has no real verification provisions, I doubt they will even do that.

Since the treaty does not prevent them from MIRVing any of their missiles and does not require them to destroy ONE SINGLE WARHEAD OR MISSILE, it is doubtful that they will downsize their arsenal at all in the next 10-15 years beyond replacing thousands of old warheads with new ones as they have been doing for the past decade. The US on the other hand plans to destroy the bulk of its deactivated warheads and keep some in reserve to deploy several months after a crisis breaks out. ChiCom missiles can hit virtually the entire continental US as can the North Korean Taepodong II according to CIA estimates. According to a recent offhand remark by a Russian lieutenant general reported in geostrategydirect.com, the Iranians already possess a small quantity of weaponized tactical nuclear warheads, but no ICBMs only Shahab III IRBMs. Shahab V will be an ICBM with a 6000 mile range. It is due to be deployed within the decade according to CIA.