Taepodong Democrats and Missile Defense

[Bonnie]

For those who desperately want Democrats to take the House/ Senate you better wish for the few remaining Democratic Hawks to still be able to get a word or two in.!!!!!!!!



The Taepodong Democrats
Still against missile defense, even in the age of Kim Jong Il.

Friday, July 21, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

When President Bush announced the U.S. withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty five years ago, Democrats howled. Pulling out of the treaty to roll out missile defense would, they predicted, lead to a new arms race, undermine American security and in any case was unnecessary. "This premise, that one day Kim Jong Il or someone will wake up one morning and say 'Aha, San Francisco!' is specious," Senator Joe Biden told AP in May 2001.

Apparently no one bothered to translate "specious" into Korean. North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il has now defied world opinion by test-firing a Taepodong-2 missile capable of hitting San Francisco. The fact that the missile failed is small consolation, since we are also now seeing in Lebanon a further proliferation of missiles from Syria and Iran that can reach deep into Israel. Does anyone doubt that Iran, or some other adversary, will build an ICBM capable of hitting the U.S. as soon as it is able?





All of which makes the U.S. political debate over missile defenses worth revisiting, not least because some Democrats are still trying to strangle the program. In the House, John Tierney of Massachusetts this year proposed cutting the Pentagon's missile-defense budget by more than half. His amendment was defeated on the House floor, but it won the support of more than half of his Democratic colleagues, including would-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Meanwhile in the Senate, Carl Levin (D., Mich.) offered in June to cut off funds for the ground-based interceptor program that Mr. Bush recently activated in Alaska in anticipation of the North Korean launch. Mr. Levin wants to stop new interceptors from being built, but Senate
Republicans wouldn't bring his proposal up for a vote. Mr. Levin has been waging his own private war against missile defenses for a generation, to the point of outflanking Russian objections on the political left.
No missile defense is perfect, but even our current rudimentary shield has proven to be strategically useful these past few weeks. The Navy had at least one ship-based Aegis missile-defense system deployed off the Korean coast, with a potential to shoot down a North Korean missile. The Aegis cruisers have successfully shot down missiles in seven of eight tests in recent years, and could become an important player in protecting allies and U.S. forces against regional missile threats. The U.S. is also dispatching PAC-3s, a more sophisticated version of the Patriot anti-missile system, to Japan. This kind of capability adds to the credibility of the U.S. deterrent, reassures allies and enhances American influence.

Virtually none of this would exist had Democrats succeeded over the years in their many attempts to kill missile defenses. Going back to 1983, Senator Ted Kennedy dismissed Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative as a fanciful "Star Wars" program. Ten years later, with President Clinton in office, Democrats starved the program of funds. Republicans made funding defenses part of their Contract with America and spent most of the 1990s battling the Clinton Administration to keep the program alive.
Democrats also made a fetish out of the ABM Treaty, even after the end of the Cold War. Al Gore campaigned to keep it in 2000, promising only to build defenses that would abide by its tight limitations. Senator Biden predicted that dropping out of the treaty to build missile defenses would turn the U.S. into "a kind of bully nation." And Senator John Kerry cautioned that "we must not set aside the logic of deterrence that has kept us safe for 40 years." Neither logic nor deterrence are the first words that come to mind when we think of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

When Mr. Bush informed Vladimir Putin that the U.S. intended to exercise its legal right to withdraw from the ABM pact, the world didn't end. The Russians moved on to bigger issues, and much of the rest of the world decided that they'd like to join the missile-defense club. Six nations now participate with the United States in developing new missile-defense technology and nearly a dozen others use some of what's already been developed.





The Pentagon now spends nearly $10 billion a year on missile defense and is developing several promising new technologies. These include sea-based defenses and low-orbit satellites that help track incoming missiles, as well as the Thaad program designed to knock out long-range missiles as they are heading to Earth. Thaad had a successful test over New Mexico last week.
By investing in this capability, the U.S. may even deter the world's rogues from investing heavily in missile technology. Defense dollars are limited, even in terror regimes, and they won't invest their money in weapons that won't work. With the expanding North Korean and Iran missile threats, it'd be nice to think Democrats would acknowledge their mistakes. But we'd gladly forgo any apologies if liberal Democrats would finally admit that missile defenses are a necessary part of America's antiterror state arsenal.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008687

 

[Annie]

Prediction: The dems will win big, not sure of takeover of either house, but big it will be. Between '06 and '08 enough will have hit the MSM to make appeasement impossible.

 

[Bonnie]

Prediction: The dems will win big, not sure of takeover of either house, but big it will be. Between '06 and '08 enough will have hit the MSM to make appeasement impossible.

And take away the only chance we have of actually protecting our borders from a nuclear attack. Levin, Pelosi, and any others who cut or end the missile defense program are ABSOLUTE TRAITORS!!!!!!!!!! and some Americans WANT them in power..

 

[Annie]

And take away the only chance we have of actually protecting our borders from a nuclear attack. Levin, Pelosi, and any others who cut or end the missile defense program are ABSOLUTE TRAITORS!!!!!!!!!! and some Americans WANT them in power..

Bonnie, many want them in power. In all truthfulness I think they are more subject to popular opinion than the administration seems to be.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Personally, I'd rather wait 5-10 years and pay 10 billion for a missle defense system with an above 60% success rating in noncontrolled conditions then pay 25 to 100 billion for a system with maybe a 30% intercept rate now. Since it'll take North Korea at least a decade to build missles capable of attacking the US, I'm not too worried about the wait.

Plus in any case, if and when we do build a missle defense system we should guarantee the defenses of Japan, South Korea, Europe, Russia, India, Pakistan, the Middle East, and maybe China.

 

[Annie]

Personally, I'd rather wait 5-10 years and pay 10 billion for a missle defense system with an above 60% success rating in noncontrolled conditions then pay 25 to 100 billion for a system with maybe a 30% intercept rate now. Since it'll take North Korea at least a decade to build missles capable of attacking the US, I'm not too worried about the wait.

Plus in any case, if and when we do build a missle defense system we should guarantee the defenses of Japan, South Korea, Europe, Russia, India, Pakistan, the Middle East, and maybe China.

Seriously, Japan may or may not have 5-10 years and is not willing to take the gamble. They'll take a 30% chance and pay for it. If you believed you were at risk, which you do not, you would too.

 

[Bonnie]

Personally, I'd rather wait 5-10 years and pay 10 billion for a missle defense system with an above 60% success rating in noncontrolled conditions then pay 25 to 100 billion for a system with maybe a 30% intercept rate now. Since it'll take North Korea at least a decade to build missles capable of attacking the US, I'm not too worried about the wait.

Plus in any case, if and when we do build a missle defense system we should guarantee the defenses of Japan, South Korea, Europe, Russia, India, Pakistan, the Middle East, and maybe China.

In terms of dollar amounts 9/11 cost (aside from the incalculable toll on human life) this country approx 84 billion dollars. Imagine if Iran or N Korea launches sooner than 5 to 10 years. Iran is already sending submarines with launch "intentions". I think we can't afford to wait. Learn as we go and take our chances with 60% over nothing.. The Democrats mentioned in the article want the whole system scrapped, either they are extremely stupid, or they just hate America as a super power.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Seriously, Japan may or may not have 5-10 years and is not willing to take the gamble. They'll take a 30% chance and pay for it. If you believed you were at risk, which you do not, you would too.

That's Japan's decision, not mine. I'm more than willing to station what defense systems we have there if the Japanese want it, but I'm not feeling like giving the world's second largest economy a 50 billion dollar gift because North Korea **might** attack.

However, if the Japanese and the South Koreans wanted to start a cooperative venture, I'd be open to a discussion.

 

[Annie]

That's Japan's decision, not mine. I'm more than willing to station what defense systems we have there if the Japanese want it, but I'm not feeling like giving the world's second largest economy a 50 billion dollar gift because North Korea **might** attack.

However, if the Japanese and the South Koreans wanted to start a cooperative venture, I'd be open to a discussion.

I doubt anyone will ask your personal opinion. However, regardless of SK, the Aegis cruisers are deploying to Japanese waters, even as we speak, with the anti-missile defenses loaded.

 

[Mr.Conley]

In terms of dollar amounts 9/11 cost (aside from the incalculable toll on human life) this country approx 84 billion dollars. Imagine if Iran or N Korea launches sooner than 5 to 10 years. Iran is already sending submarines with launch "intentions". I think we can't afford to wait. BTW the Democrats mentioned in the article want the whole system scrapped, either they are extremely stupid, or they just hate America as a super power.

But then you have to realize that with such a small intercept chance we're likely to get hit anyway. Then all you do is add the 50 billion dollar cost of an ineffective missle defense system to the political, economic, and military fallout costs that will occur anyway. Again, I'd rather wait 5-10 years and take the better defense system.

As to your other point: I know. The democrats are just being idiots. The Cold War is over. Back then MAD was effective, inadequate missle defense systems hurt our situation then, not anymore though. Ideally we'd establish a joint-cooperative effort with the Europeans, Russians, Indians, Japanese, South Koreans, and the Chinese. That way all the major players are working together for mutual defense while strengthening relations. Once that system is complete then we guarantee the protection of all the other small countries that didn't contribute to the system. That way we simulataneously destroy the ICBM threat to the country AND come out looking like heroes.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I doubt anyone will ask your personal opinion. However, regardless of SK, the Aegis cruisers are deploying to Japanese waters, even as we speak, with the anti-missile defenses loaded.

1. I don't expect anyone too. I'm just saying what I think should be done.

2. I know.

 

[dilloduck]

1. I don't expect anyone too. I'm just saying what I think should be done.

2. I know.

Cool--target practice ! ( It would sure suck if we missed, tho)