"Antimulticulture" wrote in message
news:44aa5e3c$0$14107$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> The End of Deterrence
> http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50881
> July 3, 2006
>
> It should surprise no one that North Korea is threatening to test-fire a
> long-range missile in the direction of the U.S.
>
> North Korea is believed to possess an arsenal of up to eight nuclear
> weapons. It has developed a new intercontinental ballistic missile, the
> Taepodong 2, which is more than capable of reaching North America. And it
> has a ruthless, barbaric, America-hating, socialist dictator running every
> aspect of what passes for life in the starving, backward, prison nation.
>
> What should America's response be to this threat?
>
> What has America's response been?
>
> For 60 years, America has deterred nuclear threats by letting its enemies
> know that any missile launch against it by a nuclear power would be met
> with
> an overwhelming nuclear response.
>
> This is the policy that kept the uneasy peace throughout the Cold War
> years
> and subsequently. No leader in his right mind would consider launching a
> missile - armed or unarmed - against the U.S. knowing it would result in
> his
> country's total annihilation.
>
> There are two problems with this policy as it pertains to the North Korea
> launch:
>
> a.. North Korea's Kim Jong-Il - sometimes referred to as Kim Jong
> Mentally
> Ill - may or may not be in his right mind. There are many reasons to
> suggest
> he is not. He has demonstrated a complete lack of compassion toward his
> own
> people - leaving millions near starvation while he feeds his own
> sophisticated war machine far in excess of anything needed to defend his
> country, which faces no realistic external threats.
>
> b.. In the current crisis, President Bush has completely abdicated his
> sworn constitutional responsibility to defend the United States from
> attack
> by refusing to reassert the nation's long-standing policy of "launch on
> warning."
> What does "launch on warning" mean?
>
> It means when NORAD detects and confirms a missile launch toward the U.S.,
> the response is an all-out nuclear attack on the country responsible.
>
> Since there is no way to determine the payload of an incoming missile, the
> U.S. policy must assume such a missile launch is a potentially devastating
> hostile act.
>
> Tacitly, however, the Bush administration has seemingly abandoned this
> very
> sensible policy with respect to the North Korean threat. Instead, the
> president suggests, the U.S. will merely "try" to shoot down the incoming
> missile with its primitive and incomplete anti-missile system.
>
> This sweeping policy change by the Bush administration is nothing short of
> suicidal and illogical. It represents, even more than North Korea's
> nuclear
> arsenal, a grave threat to the security of the U.S.
>
> By not reminding the world that U.S. national defense policy is "launch on
> warning," Bush has invited more threats like this in the future and, even
> worse, an attack scenario that could spell the end of America's way of
> life
> at some point in the future.
>
> If we permit North Korea to fire a missile - armed or unarmed - toward the
> U.S., with no immediate response guaranteed, what will prevent future
> aggression of this kind by North Korea and other enemies determined to
> test
> America's resolve?
>
> I have to tell you I am gravely alarmed by the fact that no other analyst
> has yet made this point as emphatically as I am making it: The only
> acceptable American response to North Korea's threat is to tell the world
> once again that any missile launch on U.S. territory will mean an all-out
> nuclear attack.
>
> We can't wait to find out if the missile carries a nuclear payload. We
> cannot afford to lose one American city. We cannot afford to see if North
> Korea's "test" is actually a nuclear electromagnetic pulse attack designed
> to cripple the country's electronic infrastructure. We can only rely on
> what
> has worked in the past - deterrence.
>
> Overnight, and without any public debate, America's defense strategy has
> dramatically shifted. By not being clear with North Korea, by not stating
> unequivocally that a missile launch of any kind toward our country means
> total devastation for the enemy responsible, President Bush has left
> America
> vulnerable to all our enemies.
>
will north korea destroy america as bad as the republicans have done it?
happy 4th of july
|