National Security

Posted: 03/12/09


Keeping America Safe: The Nuclear Threat... are we ready?

If you haven't read Fred Thompson's Revitalizing America's Armed Forces Plan to Strengthen the Long Term Security of the United States... you should. It outlines a comprehensive plan that makes good sense. But perhaps the most important element in our national security is our position on ballistic missile defense systems, (BMDs). Prior to BMDs the choice with regard to nuclear weapons was mutual destruction. They fire theirs... we retaliate in kind. But today, as others have pointed out we have the opportunity to build and deploy systems that destroy our enemies missiles before they reach our shores. And yes, more work needs to be done.


With all the talk about "rebuilding the American dream" and the billions of dollars the "stimulus" package is spending on social programs you would think the liberal left would understand the need to protect that investment. We should be interested in developing and helping our allies develop BMDs against attack. We should also desert naivety and learn whom we can and cannot trust. Obama's "secret letter" to President Medvedev of Russia that described Obama's offer to drop missile installations in Eastern Europe if Medvedev could convince Iran to stop any nuclear weapons development is laughable. It backfired at home and abroad.


Although it is reported that no actual "deal" was offered to the Russians several problems ensued from Obama's actions. First of all, Poland and the Czech Republic were left with doubts as to the United States commitment to the missile defense cooperation treaties we signed and the missile defense facilities to be built in Warsaw and Prague. Secondly,a "secret letter" when you have promised "transparency" to the American people appears dishonest. Finally, the Russians really can't do anything about Iran's desire for nuclear weapons in the first place and to continue the whole discourse would simply give Iran more time to develop nuclear weapons.


Fast forward to Hillary Clinton's meeting with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva last Friday where Lavrov was expected to "have something to say on missile defense." Other than the botched exchange of a souvenir button Ms. Clinton presented to Mr. Lavrov... which said "peregruzka" (overload) rather than "perezagruzka" (reset), as reported by RIA Novosti... and the obvious embarrassment, little seems to have been accomplished. RIA Novosti reported that Lavrov merely stated, "Russia welcomes the U.S. intention to reset relations but now would like to see what America means by this." Translation: OMG! I can't believe they think we have that kind of influence over Iran or that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would even honor any commitment we could extract! How far can we ride this train?


Lastly, President Obama and President Medvedev are scheduled to meet at the G20 Summit on April 2nd in London. Hopefully, no more of this nonsense will go on. President Obama's stand on missile defense has been articulated by his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, who stated Obama would weigh a number of factors in deciding whether to proceed with a missile-defense system, "including whether or not the system worked and the cost of the system." R&D Mr. President... it's called R&D and it should have been clearly appropriated funds under Defense spending in your $787B American Recovery and Investment Act.





Further Reading:

Revitalizing America's Armed Forces
Fred Thompson's Plan to Strengthen the Long Term Security of the United States


Strategic missile defense: Targets long-range ICBMs, which travel at about 7 km/s (15,700 mph). Example of currently active systems: Russian A-135 system which defends Moscow, and the U.S. Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system that defends the United States. Geographic range of strategic defense can be regional (Russian system) or national (U.S. system).