You have commented 338 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Fifth Column
Where are ‘Star Wars’ critics now?
2006-07-07
(editorial from The Washington Examiner)

North Korea’s threatening spate of missile launches — including an unsuccessful try with an advanced version of its Taepodong 2 Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile that is capable of hitting the United States — has sparked a cacophony of talk from leaders and foreign policy experts around the world.

As they debate and discuss various options at the United Nations and in capitals around the globe, the rudimentary U.S. missile defense system is poised to shoot down anything launched from North Korea that threatens the American homeland or the critical interests of our regional allies like Japan and Australia.

Noticeably absent are the voices of those who, since President Reagan first proposed such a system in 1984, have fought development and deployment of the missile defense system the U.S. must now depend upon in dealing with North Korea. These folks have claimed over and over that the system they derisively call “Star Wars” can’t possibly work, would be too expensive, would incite a new world arms race, etc., etc. Names that come to mind in this regard include senators like Joe Biden, D-Del., Jack Reed, D-R.I., Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Carl Levin, D-Mich., and the Clinton-Gore administration that delayed and dilly-dallied with work on missile defense for most of the ’90s.

It is important that the American people understand two aspects of the current crisis as it relates to missile defense. First, the system President Bush recently ordered advanced from its testing stage to operational status when the North Koreans began preparing the Taepodong 2 launch is extremely rudimentary because it is still being developed. The system now includes only 11 ground-based launch sites in Alaska and California capable of knocking out long-range missiles like the Taepodong 2, and four Aegis-class Navy destroyers equipped with missile defense battle management systems and Standard-3 missiles capable of hitting medium range threats.

Second, they will no doubt protest to high heaven, but “Star Wars” critics must bear the major burden of responsibility for the delays and setbacks that have prevented the missile defense system from becoming fully operational long before the present crisis with North Korea. There have been technological problems, especially in the very early stages, but those were temporary and subject to American technological prowess.

Far more serious have been the setbacks engineered by the critics — like then-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell’s maneuvers to kill the first Bush administration’s Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (G-PALS) plan, the Clinton-Gore gutting of the Strategic Defense Initiative office in 1993 and the delaying tactics used by Senate Democrats in the first years of this decade to reduce the current program’s funding.

It is a sobering thought to wonder how much more secure the United States and its allies would be today in the face of madness like North KoreaÂ’s launches if instead of a limited defense still in development we could depend upon the robust protection first proposed many years ago.
Posted by:Anonymoose

#5  HAWAII = HQ of US Navy's Pacific Fleet + major US Commands; A US State - read, influence over [pro/anti-North Korea]national budget-politics; has large, politically-econ active Asian population; BMD-GMD locale; is heavily Welfarist-Nanny US State; Yamaoto failed to invade and isolate Pearl Harbor = Hawaii during or after December 7th, 1941, i.e. support IJN-desired "decisive battle" against US fleet in Pacific; locale for Norkie-supported Mafia operations in USA; Chicom plans for Asian-Pacific hegemony > substitute China for America in entire Pacific; Commies need Hawaii + parts of ALCAN to cover the Pacific flanks of Mother Cindy's Airborne Army of US Liberation-OWG = Amerikkan Peacekeeping Force as they fight to "liberate" all of NORAM-CONUS from Dubya's fascists, i.e "purge" America's sacred National Communist, pan-Socialist, Totalitarianism-Regul Absolutism = Perfection/Utopianism, pro-Stalinist, pro-OWG anti-US sovereignty mainstream from its defective klutz/simpleton = criminal, Male Brute, mere Authoritarian, limited Govermentist, etal. Fascist SOCIALIST GOP-Rightist minority faction. LASTLY, threatening a lawful, de facto US State > hopes to scare US politicians into diverting powerful US forces to cover Hawaii AT EXPENSE OF US ALLIES IN ASIA. ITS A QUANDRY FOR THE NORKIES > they know their [starving] 3-Milyuhn plus population are expendable fodder for the Chicoms yet Norks too have a moral duty to protect and save the lives of as many of their people as they can.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-07-07 23:19  

#4  I stand by my prior criticism. The original three were OK, but the most recent three really sucked. Oh yeah, and it's a shame they didn't kill off Jar-Jar.

Oh! Never mind ...
Posted by: DMFD   2006-07-07 19:08  

#3  ....and should be enshrined on Mount Rushmore!
I think there's enough rock left.
Posted by: RJB in JC MO   2006-07-07 18:28  

#2  Another reason why I belive Reagan was the greatest President of the 20th Century, hands down.
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-07-07 17:38  

#1  Had that Dong headed in the vicinity of Hawaii and we missed on the intercept (or used too many of our interceptors in the process) these same politicians -- who spent 20 years retarding BMD progress -- would have been blaming Bush "incompetence" for not getting BMD to work as well as it could.

This is why, after 8 years here in DC, I now have UTTER contempt for the legislative branch of government. Most members of congress are opportunistic Monday morning quarterbacks.

The anti-BMD crowd is among the worst. Most are motivated by a leftist ideology that taught them that developing this technology was 'destabilizing.' What always angered me is that -- in their concept of 'stability' -- the US had far fewer options for its own defense yet somehow it was wrong to question their patriotism. Also, their doctrine -- to the extent that their sentiments amounted to one -- relied exclusively on a massive nuclear counterstrike for deterrence. Yet somehow it was wrong to question their judgement or sense of morality.

I might not agree with Bush all the time but at least, when he (or for that matter any of his predecessors) takes a position on something, he makes a commitment to action and is judged accordingly, unlike these legislators who will happily go on the Sunday morning shows to bash the administration (for instance, to demagouge a BMD test) regardless of what happens.

I have respect only for the people in government service who lose sleep at night over things like Kimmie's nukes and missiles. I seriously doubt Levin or any of the anti-BMD crowd has lost a wink over the demonstrable bankruptcy of their strategy over the last 20 years.

I like this op ed for setting the record straight. Unfortunately, IMO, right wingers like me have had too many reasons lately to say 'I told you so.' While the current NK situation proves us right on BMD I believe 9/11 pretty much settled the death penalty debate and the Washington snipers -- and fear of do-it-yourself jihadis -- pretty much ended the 'gun control' debate.
Posted by: JAB   2006-07-07 14:10  

00:00