Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Star Wars: The Liberal Menace

White South Africans know about the consequences of disarmed citizens in the face of a third world onslaught. Americans, you have been warned.

Over the July 4th weekend, while you were barbecuing and watching fireworks, North Korea test fired 7 ballistic missiles over the Pacific. While they did not carry nuclear weapons they were not exactly roman candles either. Also, Iran continues to develop its own missile capabilities, not to mention their nuclear capabilities. Both of these countries are lead by homicidal dictators who would like nothing more than to destroy an American city or two, even if it meant the complete annihilation of their own country. Lucky for us, the US has a missile defense system that is capable of shooting down enemy missiles.

Meantime President Obama is meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and has agreed to reduce our stockpile of nuclear weapons by one-third. Even more alarming is that President Obama is under pressure from, not only the Russians but also most of the “world community” to end US programs that could shoot down incoming missiles. So far, the president has not agreed to end US missile defense but he has hinted in the past that the program should be scrapped. Hopefully the president will not fold on this but we all know how much President Obama loves to make friends with the “world community”, even at the expense of the “American community”.

In the 1980’s President Reagan pushed hard for a missile defense system. Critics, (namely Liberals) dubbed the missile defense program “Star Wars” after the 1977 George Lucas film. Liberals cynically said it would never work, what they really meant was they didn’t want it to work. The film Star Wars can teach these liberals a lesson about negotiating with evil powers. When Princess Leia’s home planet was threatened with destruction, she was forced to reveal the location of the secret rebel base. The evil galactic empire then destroyed her planet anyway.

Liberals normally take a passive approach to defense, (Neville Chamberlain). Liberals always want to take the “diplomatic approach” when dealing with enemies. Conservatives prefer the Reagan method: peace through strength. That does not mean starting wars all over the world. It means peace is best achieved by maintaining a strong national defense so that foreign enemies are deterred from attacking us. Sound reasonable? Not to most Democrats; they say that a strong defense only escalates hostilities. That may well be, but a weak defense can also escalate hostilities, only we would be left exposed to our enemies. To take this argument a step further, should we not defend our borders because doing so is said to be “hostile” by the “world community? Oh wait, that’s already happening!

Reasons why liberals are against missile defense:

Reason # 1- The “world community” opposes it.

We cannot afford to weaken our national security in order to please the rest of the world, (including our enemies). The rest of the world does not have our best interests in mind, they have their own. Why do liberals care so much about what the rest of the world thinks? If the rest of the world jumped off a bridge, should the US jump too?

Perhaps if the rest of the world remembered that the USA is a force for good in the world, they would agree with us but that is an argument for another time.

For those who would prefer not to have nuclear missiles rain down upon us, strategic missile defense is welcomed. It provides a shield in the event some other nation launches ballistic missiles toward the United States or our allies.

Reason # 2- It’s too complex, it'll never work, it’s too hard, etc.

Missile defense is very complex but it can and will work if given the chance. Here’s how: if an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) is launched toward the US, advanced radar systems would pick up the missile and track it; then a 2-part intercept missile is launched in the direction of the incoming missile. If all goes well the interceptor, traveling 15,000 mph, will collide with the enemy missile, traveling 5,000 mph, approximately 120 miles above the earth(1). Sounds easy right?

Not really. Missile defense involves inconceivable technical challenges; shooting down an enemy warhead in space is very difficult. That doesn’t mean we should not try. To quote a Democrat; “we choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard”. JFK may have been a Democrat but he was no liberal. If Kennedy were president today he would almost certainly support using missile defense to protect the United States from nuclear attack.

Where would we be as a country if we failed to do anything that was difficult? After Apollo I, did NASA give up on going to the moon? No. Did the US refuse to fight in World War II because it would be too hard? No. Weak-kneed liberals are constantly afraid to do anything with risk involved. Man up, liberals!

Reason # 3- Reducing arms is the key to world peace.

The left in this country believes that reducing arms is the key to maintaining peace, as demonstrated by President Obama in Russia pledging to reduce our nuclear stock pile to 1,500 warheads(2). How will this make us safer? 1,500 nuclear bombs are still enough to destroy the world many times over; so who cares if we reduce our stockpiles? If anything, a move like this will only embolden our enemies because we will be perceived as weak. This argument is similar to the liberal argument against gun ownership. Nuclear bombs don’t kill, people do.

Another argument for arms reduction is that we are reducing the risk of a former Soviet bomb falling into the ‘wrong hands’. The problem is, the Russians will still have 1,500 nuclear warheads that can still fall into the ‘wrong hands’ and it only takes one rogue nuclear weapon to ruin your whole day.

We cannot let our survival be dependent upon diplomacy alone, missile defense must continue to be developed and funded in order to assure the peace that all of us desire. We cannot assume that all other nations with nuclear weapons will use them responsibly. Some rogue nation might just be crazy enough to launch a warhead or two our way and while we can always launch 1,500 warheads back their way it wouldn’t prevent an American city and all of its inhabitants from being erased from existence.

2 Opinion(s):

Doberman said...

A liberal menace indeed.

Dachshund said...

The way Carrie Fisher holds that gun, you'd think it was a hairdryer.