Yes, Mark, I am curious too as to why having a missile defense system was opposed by the left. Maybe it's their aversion to defense spending in lieu of social spending. It's puzzling indeed. I'm sure our resident trolls will be able to clear all this up, once they wake up and get rid of those pesky hangovers...

From what I remember hearing in the past, Europeans were afraid of us having it because it would in theory make us "invincible". So they started complaining about that. And, of course, once Europe started saying it was a bad thing the moon bats (who seem to worship Europe) all agreed.

SDI is bad because it helps the US.

Didn't Reagan want a space-based laser to shoot down missiles?

And that would be a bad thing Georgia? If it works, and I believe we could have made it work, it would strengthen our defence.

Georgia,
They built a prototype plane with a chemical based laser than can shoot lasers at incoming missiles, I saw a special about it on TLC a couple years ago. But it's range is limited to a couple hundred miles. Personally, I'd like them to fly them non-stop around LA, NYC, and Washington, but for the rest of us, they'd need something like they tested yesterday.

Also, I got a call from someone representing Senator Clinton maybe a year after Bush had been elected, probably gauging her support to run for prez in 04. They asked me a severely loaded question, something like "Do you know Bush is pumping money into SDI that's had failed tests while people are starving in American cities, and did you know Senator Clinton opposes this program?" Yes. We know. And I told the poller then that I still support Bush and SDI. This call came on the heels of North Korea kicking out inspectors, shutting off cameras, and beginning their own nuclear weapons program. She was wrong then, and she's even more wrong b/c of yesterday.

Didn't Reagan want a space-based laser to shoot down missiles?

Frawg, didn't I provide a link to an article about some kind of futuristic weapons system last winter, in response to one of your posts? IIRC, it was laser or particle bean or something similar, and was pretty close to being operational. I've searched and searched and can't find that article again. You didn't by any chance archive it, did you? It was about the same time you posted an article about Rail Guns.

Retired Spook,

It was, I believe, a particle beam...I remember that clearly because my mother, a physicist, was all hot for our building a particle-beam anti-missile laser in the 1970's, and she was just thrilled when Reagan proposed SDI.

And, Georgia, you use what you can - if a laser does the trick, you use a laser...if a missile does it, you use the missile. The thing is to prevent the detonation of a thermo-nuclear device...the cost of an SDI will never, ever exceed the cost of one US city being destroyed by an ICBM.

Mark,

What you wrote about John Kerry is an outright lie and you know it is. Your statement shows how hypocritical Christian Conservatives are. You’re always talking about how important it is to follow “God’s law” but you show complete indifference to the commandment “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”. If you deny this, then provide one reference showing John Kerry proposing to help the Iranians with their nuclear program or providing missile defense for them.

By the way, Ronald Reagan really did propose to share our missile defense program with the evil empire (Soviet Union).

Oi oi... again...

What the heck are you talking about Brian? He made a hypothetical remark, he didn't say Kerry would have given the Iranians nukes. But, say if Mark can find Kerry saying he'd allow Iran having a nuclear reactor would you take back what you just said?

As for Reagan proposing sharing the defense shield, why wouldn't he? If we had one that would make us "invincible" to any nuclear attack at the time, wouldn't giving the Russians a similar system give them more reason to disarm? We'd probably end up with no ICBM's because they'd be useless with both sides having missle shields.

Different eras and different global politics.

"I never understood, as a young man, why the United States decided that being defenseless against ballistic attack was considered a good thing - and I'll never understand why anyone would oppose the construction of a system which may, God willing, making ballistic missiles obsolete one day."

Mark:
We tend to forget how much technology has advanced since the 80s. The reason for all the opposition to Star Wars back then was because a ballistic missile defence system was not possible with the current technology. I believe that Isaac Asimov put it this way: We are talking about a system that must work perfectly, after several years of inactivity, with no time for debugging or maintenance. And after, I might add, several years of budget cuts, vacilliation, and inattention by a Democrat government.

Having said that, your article points out that Star Wars never went away. The DOD is still working on it.

May I also say that a buck towards the Space program is also a buck towards ballistic defence - the two technologies have many of the same goals.

"I never understood, as a young man, why the United States decided that being defenseless against ballistic attack was considered a good thing - and I'll never understand why anyone would oppose the construction of a system which may, God willing, making ballistic missiles obsolete one day."

Mark:
We tend to forget how much technology has advanced since the 80s. The reason for all the opposition to Star Wars back then was because a ballistic missile defence system was not possible with the current technology. I believe that Isaac Asimov put it this way: We are talking about a system that must work perfectly, after several years of inactivity, with no time for debugging or maintenance. And after, I might add, several years of budget cuts, vacilliation, and inattention by a Democrat government.

Having said that, your article points out that Star Wars never went away. The DOD is still working on it.

May I also say that a buck towards the Space program is also a buck towards ballistic defence - the two technologies have many of the same goals.

Gozer,

I don’t think there are any Republicans or Democrats saying that Iran can’t have a nuclear reactor. They already have one. What is being opposed is Iran having a nuclear weapons program and Iran enriching uranium so that it can be used for nuclear weapons. What Mark said is that John Kerry would help Iran with their nuclear program. If he can provide an example of John Kerry stating this, I will take back what I said. The only comments I’ve heard from John Kerry regarding this issue is that Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons and we should not rule out force to prevent this from happening.

I think considering to share a missile-defense system with the Soviet Union was a foolish idea. At the time, the Soviet Union was a brutal dictatorship. In addition, the Soviet Union had a huge numerical superiority over the U.S. in conventional weapons. They had over 50,000 tanks compared to less than 10,000 for the U.S. and they had a similar advantage in tactical aircraft and artillery. Without the threat of nuclear weapons, there was no guarantee that the Soviet Union would not have used their numerical superiority in men and conventional weapons to take over Western Europe. They had already used military force to keep Czechoslovakia and Hungary under their control.

Mark, you know the DemoCRAPs had a missile defense plan--it was rolled out by Clinton and Albright in the 1990's. They gave N. Korea nuclear technology in return for a promise from them not to use it to create nuclear weapons.

Their current missile defense plan is "We have nukes, so why shouldn't they?," or "If we destroy all of ours, they won't be compelled to get any."

So there, Mark, I've outlined more than one DemoCRAP missile defense plan. Stay tuned for more DemoCRAP plans...

First I have to say that it is great that we finally got a good test of this system.

I am adopting the term "Bushbots" because it describes the people I will refer to better than Republican or Neocon.

Only the bushbots fail so miserably to see past their hatred for Democrats, that they do not realize there is more to security than military force and readiness.

Although I did not approve of Clinton, I do understand that his decisions were not an attempt to leave America defenseless. It is only in the minds of a bushbot that Democrats are against America, and it is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard anyone ever say anywhere.

You bushbots need to rename this site to BlogsAgainstTheLeft, because thats what it is. The bushbots can't seem to say anything about Bush without making it a attack against Left. It is hard to find a post here that has even the slightest resemblance to political insight. Do the bushbots ever look far enough into an issue to understand it, or are they just looking for their next attack?

When Clinton decided to pass the final decision on to the next president he considered several political factors. The missile defense system was causing international tension and unrest, it was years from successful testing, and was in fact still being developed as a project. Postponing a decision, until the system was closer to operational was a wise choice, that he certainly knew would leave the decision to be made at a more strategic time. There was no logical reason to maintain tension over plans for a system that was years from being functional.

Bush's defense strategy does not consider how much of a threat the international community sees us as, he simply relies on superior might and fear of that might. That approach does not ensure global security, it ensures only U.S. domination. A situation that we would in no way be willing to accept if it were another nations goal, and you can expect the rest of the world to feel the same way.

The ABM treaty bars nuclear defense, keeping intact mutually assured destruction (MAD), a key in ending the Cold-War. The reason we considered sharing defense technology with Russia was, the system is a violation of the ABM treaty, and believe it or not, America used to honor the treaties it had signed. The negotiations over the ABM treaty considered mutual defense vs. mutual destruction. Further more, the Cold-War was an arms race not a war, Russia competed with the U.S. for the title of the World-Super-Power, with both countries in fear that if the other was to gain an upper had, international influence would be lost. Neither country ever had an intent to attack the other, and just as they were in WWII, Russia was and still is our Ally. A valuable relationship that is slipping away at the hands of Bush.

An effective missile defense system does not prevent the U.S. from being attacked, it only reduces the options the enemy has, to the point of eliminating military targets all together. This impression of being untouchable is an invitation to be proven wrong, by those who see the U.S. as being arrogant in our military power. Although this system provides a defense against the loss of military power, it leaves civilians as the only target for an attack on U.S. soil. As we saw on 9-11, we are not untouchable, and this system does not change that.

I'm not against the missile defense system, I'm just saying that without proper diplomacy, it could cause problems, and even promote terrorism, or a new arms race.

Only the bushbots fail so miserably to see past their hatred for Democrats, that they do not realize there is more to security than military force and readiness.

I don't hate all DemoCRAPs, James--just kooks like you.

I'm not against the missile defense system, I'm just saying that without proper diplomacy, it could cause problems, and even promote terrorism, or a new arms race.

Spoken like a true kook, Jimmy. Diplomacy? Since when do we need diplomacy to protect ourselves from total destruction? Promote terrorism? Get real, kook! A new arms race? With whom? I think we have a head start, so bring it on.

You, sir, are a first-class idiot. Go back to Kos, or whatever rock you crawled out from under...

James,
Listen to your argument. Promoting America's interest was for Clinton not as much of a priority as diplomacy. We know this. He proved it in North Korea. The libs' idea that everyone has a right to health care and their own nuclear reactor just as much as Americans do led to nuclear weapons being in the hands of a paranoid hystrionic dictator. Just because everyone has a right to a gun doesn't mean we don't limit the ability of those with psychiatric instability in our own country from getting guns. But Clinton gave this guy a nuke on his promise he wouldn't use it to make weapons. He relied on diplomacy, on trying to make other nations like us more.

When we went to war with Iraq, we saw exactly what all the years of Clinton's soft power had bought. We saw France, Russia and China sell our interest out for oil for food bribes and cheaper gas. They'd been selling banned weapons systems to Saddam while Clinton was using his diplomatic approach. They lied to us because they have an interest in their own power, and if you know anything about Russia and China's histories, you'd know that they have no conception of Judeo Christian morality, that words given in treaties by them don't "mean something" unless they serve their own interests. It's not the end of the world, but it can be if we treat them as though they are bound by the boy scout code.

Yes, Bush recognized the reality that China and Russia believe themselves to be best served for a return to prominence by a weakened United States, and so he pursued SDI so that we might protect our cities from nuclear strikes. He's such an idiot, isn't he?

keefer
Hate to tell you this, but I'm not a Democrat.

You obviously have not followed this issue, when we withdrew from the ABM treaty Putin said it was a mistake. The original fears were that it would cause a new arms race with Russia and or China. When asked why they were so relaxed, the reply was that they believe the system was nowhere near functional. It seems they were wrong about our progress, which is probably why Putin wanted more transparency, it also changes things a bit. Transparency, would fall under the category of diplomacy. You fail to grasp the concepts of politics, it's a good thing your just a poster on the blogs. And, wow an issue you don't think will cause terrorist attacks, are there any other issues that don't?

"I think we have a head start, so bring it on."
Honestly keefer, is that what you want? Are you that stupid as to invite the kind of conditions we had in the Cold-War, because we are already ahead? Or was that just another 'look at how tough I am' remarks? Can I assume that you're trying to run me off means you don't want to discuss this issue with me?

And keefer, "DemoCRAPs", how old are you?

Stick to 'James', Jim or Jimmy is reserved for friends, and you're no friend of mine.

Morris,
I'm not sure what part of my argument you are disagreeing with, or even if you are. I'm pretty sure I agree with what you said, as long as I understood you correctly.

My main point was that as dumb as Clinton was, he wasn't trying to undermine the U.S. as Calvin suggested. "SDI is bad because it helps the US."

There are plenty legitimate reason for bashing Democrats, I just don't see many here. There are also logical reason for opposing, or promoting the things they do, and it has nothing to do with hating, or undermining America. More than anything I hate stupid people, and we have an abundance of them here, both on this blog and in America.