Why do they want to cut missle defense again?
Jun 18th, 2009 by David Anderson
This administration is proposing to slash missile defense. The timing seems to less than desirable to put this nation’s self defense in the grip of hope alone. PRK (North Korea) is said to be planning to fire a warning shot at Hawaii on Independence Day. GWB’s missile interceptors are on the way.
Thank God for GWB. I hope BHO will reconsider some of these ill fated national security polices so we can say Thank God for BHO when some threat comes up 4 years from now.
I accept the administration’s analysis that we can save some money on missile defense without reducing security. Reducing the deficit itself enhances security.
Seven months into the Obama administration we have Pakistani troops rooting out Taliban, we have an incipient democratic revolution in Iran, we are reaching out diplomatically to the Islamic world, and we are pressuring Israel to halt its settlements. It is too early to be complacent but I am definitely looking forward to saying “Thank God for BHO.”
Sometimes defense is best served by reducing the threat, not just spending more money.
A missile defense that is designed to knock out a rogue missile (or two or three) is VERY prudent. Not like Reagan’s far-fetched “Star Wars” program. Compared to the cost of other military projects (and social programs) this is dirt-cheap.
The biggest threat from a rogue state’s missile is the EMP effect. That is worth the cost of a basic missile defense ALONE.
I agree with Hube’s statements. But Hube is arguing with a strawman, since nobody is proposing that we go to ZERO missile defense.
We have to cut back on our missile defence to give N. Korea a chance to catch up. Once they can hit the West Coast then we can start to beef up the missile defence program again. That way it is more of a fair stand-off, or fight if it comes to that. (/sarc.)
We should build a ‘Doomsday Device’ like in Doctor Strangelove.
The mindset that opposes missile defense seems to be similar to the one that believes unarmed citizens are somehow safer.
While we can still call 9-1-1 in the secure belief that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away, who do we call if some rogue nation launches a missile with a nuclear warhead our way? Should the response be a stern diplomatic note?
Art keeps on stuffing the strawman… Who says there should be *NO* missile defense? Nobody.
BO has to slash the budget somewhere…..how else can he fund Million Man Civilian Defense Acorn Army that he promised us during his campaign?
….how else can he fund Million Man Civilian Defense Acorn Army that he promised us during his campaign?…asks Rick
Perhaps this may be Obama’s version of the SA. Perhaps the ObamaTroopers could offset their expenses by selling bean pies on the street.
The arguments against the missile defense in Poland were very weak. What would be installed would have no offensive capability. It would be the equivalent of a homeowner installing an alarm system and keeping a firearm handy for the period until the police arrive.
Yet in ‘progressive’ minds, such a system would be provocative. Perhaps it would harm Putin and his counter-counterrevolutionaries and make the export of missile technology to rogue states less profitable. Why buy what cannot be successfully delivered?
Art is right. The mentality is that our defending ourselves makes the bad guys bad. It is a stupid mentality which will get someone killed. Peace really does come through strength tempered with patience and humility.
Yet in ‘progressive’ minds, such a system would be provocative.
More strawman. Actually it is Putin who says it is provocative, and he isn’t exactly progressive.
None of your arguments so far successfully refute the administration’s contention that we can spend a little less on missile defense without sacrificing security. Plus, the reductions are targeted toward ineffective systems while maintaining effective systems.
“..it is Putin who says it is provocative, and he isn’t exactly progressive.”
Sure he is; he believes in nationalized industry and czarist cabinet powers.
….he believes in nationalized industry and czarist cabinet powers….Rick
Perhaps the ‘czar fetish’ should be consigned to a latter-day ‘House of Special Purpose’ and the word ‘commissar’ be substituted for the sake of truth in labelling.
How many of the current and proposed ‘czars’ come even close to the brilliance of the late Nicholas II? Obama may have a RasPutin somewhere…..
why? because national defense is so Republican… it’s icky
national defense is so Republican
It’s true. The more Republicans are in charge, the more national defense we need.