Since the WMD thread went 8 pages, I'm curious as to the boards position on the next stage in our nations defense. I saw this commentary on the next generation of missle defense and found it quite interesting. I think it will be very interesting what the position of the Democratic party will be on will be on this.

Commentary: Missile defenses: Better safe than sorry
Orlando Sentinel 07/11/03
author: Peter A. Brown

If anyone ever doubted that governmental policy choices have life-and-death consequences, the war with Iraq should settle the matter.

That's why when the inevitable debate begins again over development of an anti-ballistic-missile system, let's remember the track records of those who
instinctively oppose new weaponry as wasteful.

If Iraq isn't lesson enough, the potential threat from North Korea should give pause to those who argue that missile defenses aren't needed because the real
threat to national security is just from terrorists.

Remember that the next time you hear the usual suspects complain about the "military-industrial complex" taking us down the wrong road.

The United States didn't quickly defeat Iraq with a minimum loss of life because it has the world's largest armed forces.

It prevailed because of the money U.S. taxpayers invested in military technology, often after bitter, usually partisan, battles about the alleged redundancy of
weapons systems, and their lower relative priority for government funds.

Regardless of whether Dwight Eisenhower was correct a half-century ago to worry about the ability of the Pentagon and its contractors to hijack U.S.
foreign policy when he coined the "military-industrial complex" phrase, today the issue is clear.

America's unmatched ability to fight at night, use computer-guided weapons with sophisticated targeting and meld communications and military technology
define the military state of the art.

Thank God that the United States has that capability and is not a nation with delusions of dominating the world.

But it's critical in the future that we don't just rest on our laurels.

Keep that in mind when some politician, as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, runs for Congress or the presidency by criticizing the Pentagon
budget as bloated, and suggests the nation would be better off spending the money on more bureaucrats or social programs.

Voters in democratic societies, and not just the United States, are legendary for their short memories when the shooting ends. It is human nature to assume
that every conflict is the last one, and to want government to put a higher priority on domestic needs.

Actually, the English take the cake in that category. They threw Winston Churchill from office at the end of World War II and proceeded to watch their
nation in the ensuing years become a second-rate power.

Let's hope they aren't stupid enough to do the same to Tony Blair in the aftermath of the Iraqi conflict.

Here at home, it wasn't too long ago that Pentagon critics -- generally, but not always, Democrats from Northern states where Americans are voting with
their moving vans -- argued that the notion that the United States should be prepared to fight two wars at the same time was an anachronism

In the 21st century, they argued, such a well-funded military was unnecessary because the threat would be from terrorists, not nation-states, and the way
to stop them was to eliminate the "root cause" of their unhappiness by throwing money at their problems.

Terrorists are a big problem, but not the only one. Defending ourselves against them isn't as expensive as preparing for wars with other countries. But just
because it is cheaper to believe that terrorists are the greatest threat doesn't necessarily make it so.

The two-war requirement is not outdated, as the continued uncertainty about North Korea shows. Remember that amid the postwar euphoria.

In fact, North Korea's nuclear-weapons program is the best, but not the only, reason why the next political battle over a weapons system will see history
repeating itself.

The Bush administration wants to go full-speed ahead with development of an anti-missile-defense system.

The issue has been a political hot potato for two decades since President Reagan first backed the idea.

Pentagon critics have derided it as unworkable and unnecessary.

The opponents first argued that, with the demise of the Soviet Union, there are no nations with nuclear warheads and the delivery system to threaten the
United States. They have also claimed the technology is not available to shoot down incoming missiles.

But the record of U.S. technology in the Iraq war in shooting down shorter-range missiles, and the success of U.S. efforts to develop weaponry generally,
is ample evidence the project deserves its chance to become the next gadget that allows us to sleep better at night.

Yeah!

Let's see if we can get a thread on the death penalty to go 10 pages!

I'll bet we can milk 15 pages out of an argument on abortion!

HELLOOOOO!!

This is a FISHING discussion board

(at least I thought it was)

Then don't click on it.

Yeah, that definitely belonged in the commentary section of the paper. I didn't see any "reasons" other than paranoia is good.

This is how missile defense was explained to me by a professor of political science. The problem with creating this system is that it will not be 100% effective and no one if foolish to expect it will be ever 100%. Analysts aren't even sure it will work at all, but what if it only brought down 50% or 90% of the missiles launched at the US? Just a few nuclear warheads would cause incredible amounts distruction. Which if the anti-missile system is suppose to prevent, but can't 100% of the time, why undertake the biggest expenditure in history for technology that won't "make us sleep better at night?"

We already have a 45 under our pillow at night- and no one else does. We have unrivaled strength, but that does not mean that we're the lone hegamon that can wield its power blindly. The Soviets are gone, but the Russians still sit on a huge inventory of weaponry. China is close behind in capablity. Why, when relations with China and Russia are at an all-time high would we alienate them with this shield which is specifically aimed to protect us against them? This is NOT for protection against North Korea. They're never going to have the sheer number of warheads which could warrent ABM protection on our part. Since there is not other super power, just two 2nd rate regional powers with enough nucs to make use nervous and who aren't our enemies....what really is the point?

Missile defense was a great idea back when we have a bi-polar world in the 1980's. There just isn't anyone to protect us from anymore. Hell, the Russians want to join NATO, an organization created to protect the Western world FROM Russians. Who is the enemy anymore?

Missile defense will do nothing to protect us from terrorism or rogue states. Its side effect is that it will alienate all those not included under the umbrella of missile defense. That, in my opinion, serves no ones interests at all.

Lastly, even if we protect ourselves 100% from missile attacks, history has shown our enemies will find another way to hit us and hit us hard. Missile defense won't prevent planes from hitting buildings or dirty bombs being set off in our cities. They'll just find another way to deliever the package.

As usual, well articulated CWU girl. However, as the article points out, just because another method of delivery or type of war exists; ie Terrorism, doesn't mean we can ignore missile threats and on a larger degree, our Military advantage over the rest of the world. The article rightly points out that the exucution of the recent war with Iraq was quick and decisive because of our technology advantage. The only way to get to 100% protection is perform due diligence in the test phase and react accordingly based on costs and performance of the system.

BW,

I click on it not to participate in a NFR argument, but in an attempt to slow the downward spiral of the quality of PP.

Another aspect of these NFR "discussions" is the fact that arguing politics or religion inevitably creates animosity.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a fist fight break out at one of the flotillas or other events attended by members of this board.

No doubt some members have decided to avoid these events because they don't want to run into this or that jerk "so-and-so".

I understand that, But Bob and JG seem to allow these threads. And at time participate in them.

It is Bob's board if it's ok with him, will that kind of lets ya know.

Slab, I've been more than outspoken on this board and usually buck the trend on here when concerned with politics or the environment. Sure there have been times I've felt attacked, but you know, I prefer to have this board be open to all points of view and I believe it fosters THINKING. And what's wrong with that?

Even if it creates some short term animosity, I don't believe it'll ever result in the kind of consequences you are foreseeing. If anything, as I said before, it fosters a broadening sense of the world and differing viewpoints that exist.

So, you continue in your fight to slow the "downward spiral" and I'll continue to post on subjects that interest me and are of interest to the board.

I have to agree with SlabQuest

More about fishing and less about politics! We get to hear about political issues 24-7 on the radio and TV. But for many, this is the only source to draw information about fishing. At one point in time I made a few commits about my political views about the war in Iraq. It didn't take me long to figure that posting political views is a no-winner!

It just seems that lots of other posts about fishing related issues keep getting removed from the screen because someone wants to voice a political opinion that has nothing to do with fish. Maybe Bob can make a "special" addition just for such posts. That way, you guys can get it on, and let the fish guys use the forum for fish talk.

Just my opinion, but I think that it's best to cast your political views at the ballot box and leave this forum to fishing!

[Edit] Maybe Bob can even lock in the "hot" political tread to the top, and then they won't be bumping the fish related posts off the main page of the forum.

Cowlitzfisherman

BW,

I think JG and Bob are currently fishing (as they should be) & have not been spending a lot of time monitoring things.

But, maybe you are right. I would be very interested to hear from Bob if he likes or dislikes this boards current trend toward NFR topics.

I visit several other boards and they all stick to their subject. Personally, I greatly prefer that approach.

I have mentioned before that ifish does a good job of segregating NFR topics from the board's core subject (fishing).

Hey, there are some excellent political discussion boards out there...

And try iboats.com for great tips on repairing, maintenance and servicing of boat motors. Just don't try to start a political argument there....it won't last 2 seconds.

From time to time I get tired of the Political threads as well. But if that's the case, I don't read them when its clear on the subject line what it's about. I think precident has been set on this board for not being overly narrow and regimented as to inclusion of subjects. I may be wrong, I don't recall anything in the rules of the board that prohibits posting on subjects other than fishing.

While I certainly can appreciate where you're coming from Slabquest, I try to think before I post so that I don't say something stupid or that is overyly offensive. I think if more people approached this website from that perspective, there would be less hostility.

Ronald Regan Borrowed billions of your dollars for a missle system that never was built.. anyone remember that.. And the USSR was a whole lot more scary than the North Koreans could ever be.

Not sure how I let myself get sucked into that reply.. I'll try and not let it happen again

Right on BW. Anglers do think and talk about politics, sports, music etc. while out there fishing, right? No reason to put on single minded blinders here then. Especially when people can "click" around it if they want.

I understand your paragraph CWU of

"This is how missile defense was explained to me by a professor of political science. The problem with creating this system is that it will not be 100% effective and no one if foolish to expect it will be ever 100%. Analysts aren't even sure it will work at all, but what if it only brought down 50% or 90% of the missiles launched at the US? Just a few nuclear warheads would cause incredible amounts distruction. Which if the anti-missile system is suppose to prevent, but can't 100% of the time, why undertake the biggest expenditure in history for technology that won't "make us sleep better at night?"

But there is a big "elephant in the room" omitted from your analysis. I am referring to the tremendous deterant factor of a high tech anti-missile system on "would be" missile tossers at America. Dont think there will be any shortage of them before the end of this millenium either. Heres a little analogy that might shed light on it. If a real bad criminal dude pointed a gun at you, and you only had a gun, chances are that a crazed dude just might think pulling the trigger first could get him what he wants (dont dismiss that factor - remember Pearl Harbor?). Now if that same bad dude wanted something from you, and had a gun at his side, but knew you were standing behind bullet proof glass, and can also see your gun thats ready to shoot back, do you think he would be dumb enough to take a chance that his bullet could pearce the sheild, also knowing he'd suffer your gun then going off at him? I dont think so!

Every country in the world saw how superior and effective our technology shined in the recent war with Saddam's regime. Even if dangerous regimes such as from the wealthy middle eastern countries, and places like North Korea and Pakistan and even China and Russia, only "thought" our anti-missle system were, say around 75% effective in general and even more effective around our key military compounds that deliver our missiles, what do you think is the immeasurable value in that?! Immense. If the systems were 50% effective, our enemies wont know that. They will think long and hard about how much more effective they might be. It will change the dynamics of the whole friggen mess on this planet! The US does not have to or have policy to launch missiles at other countries. Other countries gaining nuks just might. In all likelyhood they eventually will use them if they thought they could get away with it! <img border="0" alt="[eat]" title="" src="graemlins/eat.gif" /> Not if we have these new systems in place. I lean to the left but I would and will vote for money to be put into to these systems!

That doesnt mean any less attention to the necessary Homeland Security against terrorism. They are not mutually exclusive, even in times of tight money. Money for domestic assistance programs wont mean crap in the not too distant future if those two major protection systems arent in place for this coming mellenium. If you dont believe that then go live in Israel for awhile to see what could become the lifestyle we will have further forced upon us if we dont "take care of business"!

Jeff...I know you try to think before posting but unless you "think" and "believe" the way the usual suspects do on this board you are in for a barrage of "facts" to prove that you are indeed an idiot and they are right. And so it will go on for who knows how many pages with absolutely no conclusion. Just the left-wingers blasting everyone else and puffing out their chestsThe responses to these political posts are so absolutely predictable even someone like me that likes the fight as a sport gets bored. Slab is just a griumpy old ******* who doesn't like kids and hates liberals so he wants to talk about fishing instead of fun stuff like WMDs and GOD and Gayness....what a boring guy.

Sandpiper, I'm really trying to see your reasoning here. How on earth can you compare the American reality tomorrow to that of Israel today? Even if you make the argument, what would a defense shield do in that situation? Absolutely nothing! Could it prevent it? NO. Plus, to be honest, I have a real problem with the US compared to country engaged in so many human rights violations.

The argument has been made time and time again in history that if we build our defenses, other countries will be discouraged to have conflicts with US. Has it worked? Well, it sorta worked with the USSR only because they ran out of cash. What happens, instead of countries backing off, they instead get defensive and increase their capablities to match or exceed ours. Do we want billions of Chinese or Indian people working against us? Why start another arms race?

Right now every rogue country wants nuclear weapons. Why? Because they know that nuclear powers do not go to war against eachother, which is an off shoot of the MAD doctrine. Arms race in action... and missile defense will only increase their ferver.

It will create an imbalance and I have no doubt that it will make rogue countries even more hostile and make those on the fence, such as China, increasingly defensive and closed off from US influence.

Who are our enemies? Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lybia, most of Africa... How many missiles do you think any of these countries are going to launch at the US? All of zero. So who are we protecting ourselves against? The communists are now capitalists in China. Who else is there?

North Korea? Lets put this in perspective. If the N. Koreans were to assult the US mainland with the 1-4 nuclear weapons they have, do you think there would be a North Korea the next day? No. They might be a little nutty, but they're not that nutty.

Countries I'm worried about: India and Pakistan. People seem to forget they almost had a nuclear war rather recently. Both are controlled by radical religious factions. What would missile defense do in that situation? Nothing.

Face it guys, the red army isn't coming. The US isn't facing a threat that can be controlled, prevented, or even eased by missile defense. Its consequences are largely negative and do not serve the national interest of defense.

I'm all for defense, but lets not put up a paper tiger and expect it to fool anyone.

Its hard to understand why the same people that bash democrats for taxing and spending on domestic issues that are very, very real are willing to spend exorbitant amounts of money defending against threats that may or may not exist.

I have little problem spending for defense, within reason. However, missile defense systems don't solve our problems. I think spending on missile research is smart, because we don't know where we we will be in 20 years. China is a concern. But currently, ballistic missile delivered attacks simply aren't the risk that we face. We face risks from terrorist attacks, and I would argue that that risk is highly overstated. We face risk in our interests overseas, and we have just shown that our land war capabilities are second to none.

The biggest risks we face are economic, as our economy is struggling, and our government is busy ignoring laws of reality.

Interesting points. Nobody knows the answers or the best paths to take. But some must be taken, to various degrees where needed. Wish I knew. But let me lay out the following possibilities, be they likely or just possible.


CdubU, you are right that using Israel today to make a comparison of what our US home atmosphere could become like in the future may not have been the best example to use. But the point has some validity.

As for your take on the potential of world arms escalation in the wake of the US coming up with an effective balistic missile defense system, I dont agree with your predictions. But I dont claim to know, the following are just my educated opinions. If what you are saying were true then we currently would not be without military peer in this world, as we clearly demonstrated we are. The other regimes and/or countries of concern did not have the money to develope their militaries to be anywhere near our capabilities. They all saw what happened back in 1991 during our liberation of Kuwait. They've all had a dozen years to do what you have posted they will,, keep up with the Jones. Obviously they havent, or even gotten to the ball park. I dont think any of them have even developed similar defensive technology to the '91 Patriot anti-missile system we deployed in that conflict, let alone the much improved versions we deployed recently! So why do you think they would or could jump so many times further than that to develop what Congress and defense specialists are contending we need and can make? Which is a far more comprehensive and accurate system that these other countries cant afford to match. They dont have the funds or technology to do that. So I dont agree with your leap frog predictions. However, if you re-read the original post atop this thread you will see that author Peter Brown of the Orlando Sentinel considers rogue countries as the biggest reason to spend the dough for the proposed balistic missile defense system. He could be right, but I think its even more needed for the radical factions of elaborate terrorist networks bent on destroying America. And deliverable nuks are not out of their reach!! You've stated yourself how many regimes already have them. So my analogy of the crazed gunman stands. This all doubles the usefulness of a better defense system.

Besides, what is being proposed is for DEFENSE. Not OFFENSE. Even if these other countries/regimes would or could follow suit as you contend, then wouldnt it be pretty cool if all countries had missile defense systems that would render balistic nuks unusable? Seems so to me, if possible.

But for now I would be willing to forego upgrading to a more expensive boat in order for our country to have certainty of the first effective system in place. BEFORE crazy influential guys like Osama and Saddam aquire the deliverable nuks. Unlike regimes and countries such as N. Korea, who still "want to be here tomorrow" and thus are detered as you say, many of these radical factions dont care if they are here tomorrow. Our missiles are not a deterant to them. Some of them say, with scary credibility, that they would die a 1000 times in order to destroy America. And they ultimately can aquire the nuks! In fact, doesnt Iran already have them?

Regardless of the oil benefits of this recent liberation of the Iraqi people, taking Saddam out of the strong possibility of aquiring deliverable nuks was the main reason for the US to go in and take his regime out. Liberation and oil were secondary. And Ill say it again, there is going to be no shortages of Osamas and Saddams during this millenium (century). Most of us will live thru about half of that and our children thru most of it! Now, would you rather face those gunmen that want to pull the trigger with the bullet proof glass in front of you, or not?

As for 20, I dont know if he has his head in the sand or has a real valid point, about his seeming contention that we simply are not in any danger of missile attacks. I do know that he likely was shocked to see many intelligent radicals sacrifice their lives to take down two huge complexes with thousands of Americans inside of them on 9/11/01. So 20, if they would go to lengths to accomplish that feat, how far do your think they would go to push "the button"? Heck, they wouldnt even have to die for that, because we cant respond back with nuks at a hidden enemy among throngs of innocents! I dont think this thing with the experts and Congress calling for appropriate defense in relation to potential risks is a "chicklen little crying about the sky falling" deal here. Hope Im wrong about that though. But like this thead said,, better safe than sorry? They are taking into consideration the real possibility, however strong it may be, that some day you could wake up and see arial TV shots of a couple big eastern cities sitting in a pile of smoke and rubble,, a much bigger version of what you woke up to see on 9/11. A few million killed. A country essentially destroyed, with total economic and social chaos for many decades to follow. "Chicken little"? Maybe. But there is no "maybe" about the fact that those crazies over there live to completely destroy America. How long can we keep the radical ones from getting the nuks? Who knows, but not forever.

Someone posted that our greater concern is terrorism within our borders. Both are the same thing. Except currently an "air mailed" big one cant be stopped. And after seeing that our guys have apparently stopped many attempts at similar acts to blow up parts of our country for close to 2 years since 9/11, Im more confident that terrorists wont be able to smuggle in a large nuclear weapon to blow up one of our cities. Homeland security still needs improvement, likely in an ongoing evolutionary scenario for an untold amount of time. Both risks need to be addressed properly in my opinion.

Ah screw it. It will never happen, right?

Im going fishing now.

Sandpiper, but they have been trying to keep up with the Jones. Why else would there be suspected nuclear programs in Iraq (never found, but very easily could have been there), Iran, Syria, North Korea....If that isn't keeping up with the Jones, I have no idea what is! They all know, once they get a nuclear weapon, the US won't touch them. That's the race.

The defense missile shield will be seen as an offensive move to the world. Just like during the Cold War, every "defensive" move by one side was seen as offensive by the other. The Soviets putting missiles in to Cuba was seen as purely defensive on their side but obviously not by ours. The same will be true for this and it will mobilize the "crazies" as you put it to develop technology, nuclear weapons, etc, in order to defend themselves against the US who will be all invincable- which we already are- after its built.

I don't think your analogy stands at all and is a silly at best. The United States is not comparable to ANY other country in that manner. A better analogy might be a tank pointed directly at a crazed gun man. Sure, a hit from a 45 might dent the armor, but the consquences for the gun man are a bit higher....

You people can talk all day on this subject. But if it is going to happen it will happen and all that talk in the world is not going to stop it. If and when you want to start a thread like this just put at the top NFR and most people won't even glance at it.

I agree that this is a fishing board and it also states it at the top. Nothwest Fishing Board. This is not a politicing board. Just my two cents worth and no I will go back under my rock