 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Failing the Test | Main | Massive Voter Registration Fraud Probed in Florida » October 1, 2004Kerry Opposes Another Vital Weapons SystemSoon after the 9/11 attack on America, the Bush administration and the nation's defense establishment began to mull how the nation could be defended against terrorists who might seek to attack armed not with hijacked airplanes but with a nuclear or other weapon-of-mass destruction acquired from a rogue nation such as Iraq, Iran, Libya or North Korea. In the years since, the rogue regime in Iraq has been removed and its efforts to develop WMD interrupted, while Libya's leader voluntarily gave up his nuclear and other WMD programs and weaponry. Libya's former nuke program sits in crates under heavy guard in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. But Iran and North Korea continue their programs to develop nuclear weapons - and do so in facilities intelligence experts and defense analysts routinely describe as "hardened" against an airstrike. The Pentagon's solution: developing weapons capable of penetrating deep into the earth to deliver an underground nuclear blast to destroy such hardened facilities. Underground explosions are said to be 10 to 15 times more effective against buried facilities than a bomb detonated above the ground. The military already has conventional bunker-buster bombs which are dropped from high altitude and hit the ground at enormous speed, punching through dirt, rock and concrete before exploding. A nuclear version would generate a far more powerful shock wave, increasing the depth of its destructive effect. Without such weapons, the United States will have no way to preemptively destroy an enemy's nuclear weapons or other WMD or WMD production facilities stored below ground in such hardened bunkers. As U.S. Navy Rear Admiral John T. Byrd, Director of Plans and Policy for the United States Strategic Command, testified on June 12, 2002, before the House Armed Services Committee's procurement subcommittee: One of the most pressing threats posed by our potential adversaries in the international arena today is the proliferation of hard and deeply buried facilities capable of protecting nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; the means of delivering them; and the leaders who would threaten the United States. Our current arsenal, developed in the Cold War, was not designed to address this growing worldwide threat. There are facilities today which we either cannot defeat, even with existing nuclear weapons, or must hold at risk using a large number of weapons. As a result, both the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, through the Nuclear Weapons Council, have approved a study of how to effectively counter this threat. This study of a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) will evaluate modifications to existing nuclear weapons that do not require nuclear testing.It only makes perfect sense that having the ability to destroy such weapons caches and weapons facilities of rogue regimes such as Iran and North Korea would make America safer. We don't currently have that capability. And yet John Kerry doesn't want us to have it. John Kerry thinks nuclear proliferation - not terrorism - is the greatest security threat facing America. He said so last night. He said President Bush hasn't shown leadership on that issue. And part of that leadership is sending the right message to places like North Korea. Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense. You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.John Kerry thinks America having nuclear weapons is akin to terrorists and rogue regimes having them. Think about it. To Kerry, the danger is the bomb itself, not the motives and agendas of the government that is holding it. Thus, a succession of American presidents commanding an arsenal of nuclear weapons as a deterrent against a Soviet missile attack were morally equivalent to the Mad Mullahs of Tehran who have been threatening to obliterate Israel just as soon as they get a nuke. The truth is, John Kerry's opposition to nuclear bunker busters would make America less safe if he is elected and able to kill the program. But it is entirely consistent with Kerry's anti-military ideology. Just as he now opposes development of a weapons system that could be crucial to defending America against a WMD attack by terrorists or a rogue regime, two decades ago he was fighting to cancel a series of weapons systems ranging from state-of-the-art combat aircraft to defensive missile systems to battlefield weapons that, all, are being used today by today's American military to wage the War On Terror. Remember the memos: In 1984, at the height of the Cold War, John Kerry wanted to cancel: LAND FORCES NAVAL FORCES AIRCRAFT And he wanted to slash the budget for the Tomahawk missile. Now, he wants to cut the nuclear bunker buster. As Will Collier wrote a few weeks ago: As somebody who's been working on fighter jets and air-to-air weapons for the last decade, I can't even imagine how our armed forces would be able to operate today if Kerry's advice had been heeded. Certainly we would not have been able to fight the Gulf War, or Afghanistan, or the liberation of Iraq. More likely, we'd have a small caretaker force today, something more resembling Canada or one of the lesser Euro states.Maybe that's what John Kerry wants - an American military unable to fight a foreign war. I think that's insane. So does President Bush, though he's too diplomatic to say it that bluntly. In last night's debate, Bush made a crucial distinction between himself and Kerry on the issue of what is the biggest threat facing America. It's not nuclear proliferation, per se. "The biggest threat facing this country," Bush said, "is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network." And the Bush administration is doing something about it. My administration started what's called the Proliferation Security Initiative. Over 60 nations involved with disrupting the trans-shipment of information and/or weapons of mass destruction materials. And we've been effective. We busted the A.Q. Khan network. This was a proliferator out of Pakistan that was selling secrets to places like North Korea and Libya. We convinced Libya to disarm. It's a central part of dealing with weapons of mass destruction and proliferation.John Kerry's position on Iraq has been a model of inconsistency and flip-flopping. But his position on providing America and its military with the tools needed to defend America has been consistent his entire political career: He was against properly arming America before he was against it. And he's still against it. We don't want to look back 20 years from now, watching news pictures of the smoking rubble of an American city devastated by a North Korean or Iranian nuke brought in by terrorists and remember the day President Kerry canceled the program that could have developed and deployed the weapon that could have destroyed that North Korean or Iranian nuclear weapons facility before the nuke ever got passed to the terrorists. A vote for John Kerry is a vote to risk the lives of millions of Americans on the proposition that a strong defense is risky but having no defense against madmen is sane. It is, quite literally, a vote you may one day pay for with your life. Posted in War on Terror
| Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com Comments
That's really no different from his position on guns: keeping them out of the hands of citizens will make the crooks less likely to use them. It's the OBJECT that is evil and scary. It CAN'T be that some people (and some governments) are far less trustworthy or moral than others. Cancelling a program, genius, is not the same as removing the assets from the inventory. The F-14A/D were becoming obsolete by the end of the 90's and were giving way to the more efficient, better designed F/A-18, a multi-role/multi-mission aircraft. While many of us believed that the F/A-18 was too limited for long in-country bombing in its attack role, it has proved that it can do well in the short fights that it has been involved in since its inception and full fleet deployment. It took the place of the venerable A-7, A-6 and F-4, performing all their missions adequately, none well. At a time of having to make choices on programs that were duplicative, and in some cases wasteful, Kerry was rightly for eliminating those programs that were, in his view, least effective in the long run and in view of other programs DoD wanted (F/A-18 upgrades, the JVX fighter). The AV-8 Harrier has always been the bastard child of military aviation, the only branch that uses it is are the Marines, it's only role at inception was Close-Air-Support for something that the Marines don't do much of any more...Amphibious Assaults. The interservice rationale was that other assets could cover for some parts of Marine Aviation (they do fly F/A-18's). I don't think that many of my Marine Harrier pilot buddies were too sad to get a seat in an F/A-18. It's interesting that you make no mention of other 80's programs that Cheney et al, slashed or wanted to slash, including bases, and even the A-10, the hero of desert storm. So, do a little research before you go whining about weapons systems, especilly those that fell into fantasyland like the sporadically useful Patriot; ICBM Missle Defense, which has not worked to this day; the B-1, a one-hop wonder of totally limited usefulness, but a cool concept plane; and the DIVAD, which as I recall even the Army really didn't want. To suggest the casual use of Nuclear Weapons shows that your understanding of warfare is borderline at best. Stick to what you know Bill, like just making shit up. It makes you seem smarter. Oh, and the F-15, neat toy, but the USAF was having creemies about the F-22 and knew that they'd have to give up something. Like the F-14, it was big, expensive and becoming an albatross...even though it was a great plane. Posted by: R Fuller at October 1, 2004 06:50 PMBesides not wanting a bunker buster, there's another weapon system Kerry opposes - missile defense. In spite of the fact that it's completely defensive, and both NK and Iran have rapidly developing ballastic weapons programs. Kerry wants this country wide open to our enemies, so they'll see we're nice guys, and then rely on the goodness in their hearts. Yeah, right! Posted by: MaDr at October 1, 2004 07:44 PMR Fuller, Wow! I'm impressed! Not. The point here is that the waffle is a pacifist, not a budget cutter. Waffle has never been on the winning side of any war. Posted by: Roundguy (not a kennedy) at October 1, 2004 08:38 PMI thought Kerry's comment about bunker busters was the most upsetting comment of the night. It cannot be allowed to stand. Unilateral Nuclear Diarmarment returns from the grave. What else is he going to bring back from the 70s, Disco? This cannot be acceptable to any large segment of the American people. We are the good guys. We can be trusted with nuclear weapons. Our possesion of nuclear weapons is an assurance to the rest of the world that they can live in peace, not a reason or excuse for them to so arm themselves. Kerry is adopting the position of the tinpot dictator. "If the United States has nuclear weapons, I should have them also, so I can protect myelf from American Imperialism." If I were the RNC I would have a major national ad campaign playing this up. Kerry has a long history of voting to cancel current and marginal programs. He has a long history of pushing for both nuclear freeze and nuclear disarmament. I must endorse what others are saying - that Kerry believes the "object" is evil - not the one who wields it. Whether it be a handgun or a nuclear device - the best solution is to make them illegal and all will be nice nice - so we can frolic naked in the glade while smoking dope. Bunker buster research must and will continue. We will no longer be a nation with their head in the sand. Mr. Kerry can continue to have his head where it currently resides. It is the Islamic Facists who attacked us. It is these same people who find joy in the decapitation of hostages and the murder of children. I say to these scum - violent delights have violent ends. Your time will come soon. Posted by: Grego at October 1, 2004 09:05 PMIs it assumed here that such rogue nations do not understand the meaning of annihalation? Giving away a nuclear device with a return address is also a bad idea. Posted by: SemiPundit at October 2, 2004 02:15 AMAlso, what would the commenters here say are the characteristics of fascism as they see it? Posted by: SemiPundit at October 2, 2004 02:25 AMSemiPundit, What the heck is your point there? I can open and read a dictionary with the best of them!! So, here's what we're short: So, again, what the heck was your point? Posted by: Birkel at October 2, 2004 03:51 AM Seeing as how Kim Jong Il has plenty to eat while his people starve I doubt that the fact that an attack by him will end up with his cities smoking ruins will matter to him. Our entire West Coast is hostage to his whims. Within minutes of the first bird leaving North Korean soil everything of importance in that country will be gone. We lose Seattle, they lose everything. Posted by: SemiPundit at October 2, 2004 12:08 PMSemiPundit, A worst case scenario is that we retaliate for a North Korean nuclear missile strike by turning the country into glass. Millions of innocent people will be "collateral damage" in that case. A much better scenario is that a nuclear-tipped missile coming from North Korea is destroyed in-flight by our fledgling anti-missile defenses, and then we pound Kim Jong Il's secure bunker location with nuclear bunker-busters until nothing within a mile of the surface could survive the shock waves. Unfortunately, several hundred or a few thousand innocent victims might still be "collateral damage" from the resulting radioactive fallout, but that would be an improvement by several orders of magnitude over the first alternative. Plus we'd proceed to clean out the rest of the North Korean government (with more nuclear bunker-busters if necessary), and thereby save hundreds of thousands of civilians from death caused by future starvation and political oppression. Posted by: Daniel Wiener at October 2, 2004 12:29 PMBirkel, Mr. Wiener, SemiPundit, Are you serious? If someone launches a nuclear-tipped missile at us, it is an act of extreme aggression even if we manage to intercept it. Our anti-missile defenses are still rudimentary, and we dare not take the chance that the next missile will get through and vaporize one of our cities. The job of counter-attacking terrorist organizations is tough, because they are dispersed and concealed within other countries. Tough but not impossible, as we proved in Afghanistan; that's the logic behind that aspect of the Bush doctrine which says that countries providing sanctuary to terrorists will be held equally acountable. On the other hand, when a real nation attacks us, it's much easier to counter-attack. We know exactly who's responsible. We can target that government and its rulers and eliminate them. We are clearly engaging in an act of self-defense, and it unquestionably removes that threat. If North Korea were ever to attack us, successfully or not, its rulers would be dead men walking (and only walking for an extremely short time). The remaining question would be how surgically we could destroy those rulers, so as to minimize harm to innocent bystanders. That's the type of situation in which in would be nice to have bunker-busting nukes as a possible option. Posted by: Daniel Wiener at October 2, 2004 02:43 PMKERRY HAS BEEN IN THE POCKETS OF OUR ENEMIES SINCE AT LEAST 1971. HIS CAREER IS BUILT ON THE BACKS OF DEAD AND MANGLED AMERICAN VETERANS. HIS SENATE VOTING RECORD MAKES IT IMMEDIATLY OBVIOUS TO EVEN CASUAL OBSERVER
I think castrating the ability of the United States to neutralize the bad guys is a way to achieve what the Left so desperately pines for: worldwide 'sympathy' and bountiful 'good will' for the USA following the attacks on us in 2001. Which we so shamelessly squandered by hitting back because we are militarily capable, a favorite media meme. Only by being penitent, absorbing blow after blow, allowing millions to be killed without complaint, can the US atone for the sin of its mere existence. The Left is the Ideology, the terrorists their activists. John Kerry? God help us all! Posted by: M King at October 2, 2004 03:29 PMWe need the bunker busters as a tool of premption. As much as NK and Iran are working on ICBMs, I think the nuke we really need to worry about will be delivered by a car, truck, or shipping container -- with no actionable "return address." ICBMs can be tracked, and so have a "return address," so do bombers -- that's one reason MAD worked. By delivering a nuke in the low-tech/plausibly-deniable way, there is no one (State) to retaliate against -- unless we want to take out sites like Mecca and Midina on general principles. I think premption is the most logical way to do this, even if it involves nukes. And I strongly, agree: yes, WE are the good guys and our military is what helps to keep the rest of the world from diving any further into the abyss than they already have. Posted by: Brett Blatchley at October 2, 2004 04:02 PMThe conventional-nuclear threshold is often set at a kiloton, the lowest setting on tactical nukes. Bunker-busters are said to be 'bad' because they supposedly blur this threshold. Well, excuuuuuuuse me. Each 9-11 explosion was 1.5 kilotons (300,000 lb of fuel = 3 million pounds of TNT), so our enemies have already crossed the precious threshold. Bunker-buster collateral damage can be kept very low using a 20,000-lb penetrator enclosing a shaped-charge nuke sending 99.99% of its blast sideways and downwards. A solid-tungesten needle-shaped penetrator tipped with micro-timed reactive explosive charges could go 300-500 feet down through rock and reinforced concrete, during which descent the 100-lb nuclear payload is 'gently' decelerated in a central tunnel as it slides down to the front of the tungsten 'vehicle', most of which would not be vaporized or even shattered by the detonation, but instead be hurled upwards to seal the entry hole. Conventional bombs on the surface could throw debris over the hole as well. Such a weapon would be too specialized and expensive for small countries to imitate. Any 'chilling' effect would be the U.S. announcement that it is 'unilaterally' enforcing the Nuclear Proliferation treaty and this weapon was reserved for nuclear sneaks. Another good point is that China will object because their dictators' bunkers become vulnerable. Bill Parkyn Posted by: Bill Parkyn at October 2, 2004 06:34 PMThere is no doubt in my mind that Kerry is as repulsive a collectivist that has ever ran for office. Most of you are right to point out his problematic views on US defense policy. You do, however, all neglect to point out the negative aspects of Bush's policy. First and foremost, on September 12th Bush said that our enemy was a shadowy network of terrorists, "and every nation that supports them." How many Americans are dead in Iraq because Bush will not swing the sledgehammer down on Syria and Iran? Not only are they the world's two foremost supporters of terrorism, they are also directly responisible for US's troubles in Iraq. So, not only are Iran and Syria harboring, aiding, training, exporting, and fomenting international terrorism, ENOUGH REASON TO HIT THEM HARD, they are committing blatant Acts of War against the United States by bankrolling and supplying the Iraqi guerillas. By God I hope Bush at least has enough courage to eliminate the regime in Iran. If Bush leaves office in 2009 and the current regime in Iran still holds power then the War on Terror is a mere farce and our countrymen in Afghanistan and Iraq have died for nothing. Speaking of Kerry and MX missiles, Kerry may have voted against it years ago but Bush has green-lighted their dismantling personally. The process will soon be complete. According to our lawmakers, the MX was built as a bargaining chip to use in an arms control agreement with the former Soviet Union and, later, Russia. The concept was that we would scrap the MX if Russia scrapped the SS-18. This has been the cornerstone of American arms control negotiations for 20 years. Well, not only did we unilaterally dismantle the MX, but the Russians are keeping over 100 SS-18s and are upgrading them to boot. No other strategic missile in the entire US arsenal is as accurate as the MX - not the MM III and certainly not the D5. Worse, the block upgrades to the Minuteman III have made them LESS ACCURATE THAN THEY WERE BEFORE THEY F*#$@# with them. They still havent figured this problem out. We need the MX - look the Russian TOPOL is superior to the MM3 - and they are continuing to develop better missiles all the time - as is China. Would you junk your brand new Lexus and drive your beat up Chevy instead? Doesn't make sense. SLBMs are not a reliable alternative. Look, its simple strategic forethought and the decision to scrap the MX and save less than $100 million over 2 decades (far less than the cost of the missiles and their development), and to do it unilaterally, with no correponding concessions for the Russians or Chinese, while both of them are developing current generation ICBMs, is the pentultimate act of strategic stupidity. And after watching the debate, and considering the above, I believe that ultimately Bush really isn't that bright. I mean, raw aptitude, he has it - but he lacks wisdom. He relies too much on advisors (ANOTHER IDIOT MOVE =>>> keeping Tenet for so long - the SOB should have been gone before Feb 2001) instead of thinking for himself on the really big issues. And most of the executive branch is flaming left - let's face it. State, CIA (Porter Goss another pro-Beijing hack) - I'm telling you, either Bush totally changes from the way we have come to know him, or we're doomed. Posted by: Brian Weatherly at October 2, 2004 08:34 PMSemiPundit said, "If an interception is successful, then why retaliate? It appears that the problem would then be isolated." With all due respect, are you nuts!? Talk about a jaw-dropper. Iran has said that a few millions Iranian deaths to destroy Israel would be acceptable. That should tell one something. Posted by: Lee at October 2, 2004 08:35 PMR Fuller writes: "To suggest the casual use of Nuclear Weapons shows that your understanding of warfare is borderline at best."
You are a lexical and semantic buffoon. Where do you get off using the word "casual"? What the fuck is "casual" about using bunker busting small-yield nuclear weapons to take out a crazy dictator's os terrorist's WMD's? Does your brain have no dynamic range on nuclear weapons? Is a .5 kiloton bunker buster the same as a 20-megaton H-bomb in your limited cranial vault? DO you have no sense of nuance? Why do you interpret words literally when it serves your demented purpose, and interpret othe words with the wildest abandon when it serves to attack your opponents? Whayt, exactly, is YOUR understanding of warfare? If I may so inform you, it's generally to destroy one's enemy onthe enemy's turf. After the buildings in your neighborhood are smoking and people jumping from the 100th story to their painful, bone-crunching, people-as-pizza-pie deaths, it's a little too late. Posted by: Scott at October 2, 2004 09:39 PMI'm not sure where you get the idea that jet fuel is ten times as energetic as TNT. Bill -- As I read your splendid commentary about Kerry's aversion to nuclear bunker busters, I was struck by how similar this aversion is to the anti-gun lobbists (guns kill not criminals) and SUVs (SUVs kill not the drivers). Posted by: Capt America at October 3, 2004 12:24 AMIt's quite interesting that most comments here simply attack Kerry or drum up some fantasy position they want to believe he holds. Posted by: Brian at October 3, 2004 01:12 AMR Fuller, Making the big assumption that you're not just out trolling us: Sure enough, cancelling a program doesn't remove its current assets from the military inventory -- it just means that those assets dwindle due to training accidents and just plain age. Attempting to cut the budget for the Tomahawk cruise missile was also just plain irresponsible. They ARE used in rather large quantities and are not quickly replaced. The extent of your understanding is shown in calling the F-15 a "neat toy." It is THE Air Force long-range, air-superiority and strike fighter and has been for 20+ years. USAF was NOT "having creemies" over the F-22 in 1984, though of course they were thinking about the next generation of technology. What do you not understand about "supercruiser" and "stealth"? But it's clear that a President Kerry would axe the F-22, leaving us with the 1960s-technology F-15 (he'll cancel any further production of that, too). "Sporadically useful Patriot"? AA missiles are "sporadically useful" when our ground forces are under air or missile attack. Would you deploy our ground-pounders without this umbrella? The B-1 was designed and built as a nuclear bomber aimed at the Soviet threat (1984, remember?) Rather few of them were built because of the advent of the B-2 but they still can carry a massive load of smart bombs and cruise missiles. Oh, yes, a President Kerry will also cancel the B-2. Depend upon it. So much for your version of "fantasyland." The programs that Kerry wanted to cancel that you DIDN'T comment on are very instructive. Could it be that YOU too thought that it was irresponsible for him to want to cancel the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, the Aegis cruisers and the Phoenix and Sparrow air-to-air missiles? All of these are, or were, backbone programs. The Sparrow was replaced by the AMRAAM in the 1990s (except for the Sea Sparrow version) but the Phoenix is still in production. So are the Aegis cruisers and destroyers (vital for air and missile defense of carrier battle groups) and the AH-64. If Kerry had had his way the Army would be saddled with a small collection of very old, Vietnam-era Huey Cobras. Now, as to the nuclear penetrator: Its existence would simply tell Kim Jong Il and the Iranian mullahs or any other rogue-state dictators that there is no way they could dig deep enough to be personally safe if they attacked the US or its allies with nuclear weapons. Our first use of this or other nuclear weapons simply wouldn't happen. They are meant to be deterrents. Kerry's rationale for canceling it was stunningly simple-minded. We can't expect others to give up nuclear weapons if we build them ourselves. Well, duh. His St. Paul's prep school sense of fair play simply doesn't cut any ice with dictators who are determined to build nuclear weapons. And we've certainly been dismantling other nuclear weapons as a great rate over the last decade. But Kerry's stance is strikingly consistent with his pants-peeingly eager backing of the Nuclear Freeze in the mid-1980s, when the USSR was a real live threat -- a freeze that we now know was eagerly if covertly supported by a host of Soviet front organizations. This guy is simply a Massachusetts ultra-liberal (check out his record) with all the anti-military baggage that that implies. Weapons are bad because they hurt people. That's a Sunday school mentality. But he's doing whatever it takes to win the election as far as tiptoeing around his past record. America shouldn't be fooled by this. Bill Clinton, at least, wanted to be liked so that limited his liberal agenda. John Kerry doesn't give a shit if he's liked or not -- he will barge ahead no matter what. He has not changed fundamentally from his Vietnam Vets Against the War days. I pale to think of the wreckage he would leave of our military establishment. This man is a danger to the country. He's the Manchurian candidate without (I hope) the hostile foreign control. He must NOT be elected. Posted by: Lee Shore at October 3, 2004 01:58 AMPerhaps I am still too simple minded, but I have trouble understanding why a nuclear bunker-buster would be a deterrent, while thousands of missile-borne warheads would not. Kim and his cohorts would have little reason to come out after it is over. Will the rest of the world allow us to become a supreme military power capable of ruling the planet? Posted by: SemiPundit at October 3, 2004 02:26 AMSemiPundit: I carefully wrote "[T]here is no way they could dig deep enough to be personally safe if they attacked the US or its allies with nuclear weapons." PERSONALLY SAFE is the salient point. They could not hope to live through our response to a nuclear attack -- in which a decapitating strike with nuclear penetrators would make a full, sea-of-glass, nuke-'em-back-to-the-Stone-Age response unnecessary. Kim and his cohorts couldn't come out afterward because they would have been incinerated. And guess what? We don't WANT to rule the planet. We're already the supreme military power, the sole surviving superpower ... for a few decades until China arrives. Posted by: Lee Shore at October 3, 2004 02:39 AMJust put your partisanship aside for a moment and consider the implications if the United States used a tactical nuclear weapon. All of a sudden, it becomes alright for any country in the world to use a tactical nuclear weapon. North Korea can drop a tactical nuke on a South Korean bunker. Pakistan can pre-emptively nuke an Indian facility. China can nuke Taiwan. Posted by: get_Real at October 3, 2004 09:47 AMget_Real; We've already set the precident: Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Again, there IS a qualitative difference whether WE use the bomb or some other country does. WE are the world's enforcer (like it or not). There is also a quantitative difference: tactical and strategic nukes are quite different - one's a cave killer, the other is a city killer. That said, I think the use of nuclear arms (in some form) is inevitable, and I suspect we will not be the ones who attack first. Posted by: Brett Blatchley at October 3, 2004 11:23 AMKerry pledges the troops everything they need, except of course bunker busters, armor, and just about every weapons system they now employ. Yeah, on guess Col Custer depended on Kerry's "help is on the way promise." Mr. Fuller's comments demonstrate a ignorance bordering on Kerry's. The F-15 is unequalled in the world. Yet in his opinion its a joke. Using his rational the US should have never developed jets at all, we should still employ prop jobs because we all know that sooner or later they will be replaced. This is the sort of mentality that condemns troops to obsolete weapons like Marine aviators flying Buffaloes at Midway were forced to do or as naval aviators flying Vindicators were also doomed to do. No doubt Mr. Fuller was formerly one of Mr. McNanamara's Wiz Kids. If Kerry wins I assume he'll be named as the chief od military R&D. Posted by: Thomas J. Jackson at October 3, 2004 08:36 PMget_Real said: "Just put your partisanship aside for a moment and consider the implications if the United States used a tactical nuclear weapon." get_Real, are you suggesting that, given the means, rogue nations and the Islamacists will politely wait until we use a nuclear weapon first? Please explain further for us partisans. Posted by: N. G. Zax at October 4, 2004 10:47 AMWhat would be a feasible North Korean strategy behind an initial nuclear attack on the United States? Is it really as simple as insanity on the part of its leaders? That seems too simple and dismissive a conclusion. They have no hope of surviving a nuclear attack from any of the currently acknowledged nuclear powers. On the other hand, we have no hope of success in a conventional on-the-ground confrontation with them. Posted by: SemiPundit at October 4, 2004 11:10 AMWe have no hope against the Norks on the ground??? We don't need bullets, we need to shoot food at them. Even some of the troops aren't getting enough to eat. What's their average height now? 5'? Besides, that's Sork's job. Posted by: Sandy P at October 4, 2004 11:30 AMSemiPundit wrote: "What would be a feasible North Korean strategy behind an initial nuclear attack on the United States? Is it really as simple as insanity on the part of its leaders? That seems too simple and dismissive a conclusion." Excuse me? Are you accusing The Dear Leader of rationality in anything but his own personal survival? Based on what evidence? Any road, the US has to base its defenses on the future capabilities of potential enemies, not on their intentions. Intentions can change overnight. Posted by: Lee Shore at October 4, 2004 03:33 PMIt is difficult for me to conceive of a North Korean military command infrastructure that is so uniformly compliant as to execute such a suicidal order without question. I could, of course, be wrong. Through power, influence, and example, we already should have been talking with these people. There are only two types of Communist regimes: those that have fallen of their own weight, and those that will. Posted by: SemiPundit at October 4, 2004 09:41 PMto:R Fuller Post a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
