Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited


The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?



Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Unwilling to Defend

Peter Huessy, President of GeoStrategic Analysis, has a damning piece in Human Events on Joe Biden's reprehensible record on national defense.

In order for you to get the full picture, I'd either need to copy the entire text of Huessy's piece here, or just ask you to go read his whole article--so I'll opt for the latter.

But to give you an idea:

- Supported the nuclear freeze

- Opposed the Trident submarine

- Opposed the Peacekeeper missile

- Opposed deployment of the Pershing and GLCMs (which I worked around overseas) that brought the Soviets to the table in the late 1980s

- Opposed the B-2 stealth bomber

- Led the fight to strip military assistance from our aid to El Salvador in the fight against the terrorist Marxist FMLN

- Supported the communist government of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua

- Opposed ballistic missile defense

It would be hard to find an agent of a foreign power who has worked harder to undermine a strong U.S. defense than has Joe Biden.

But then, as pathetic as it is, Biden fits very well with Barack Obama who has promised, on camera, to gut our national defense.

Obama says he will:

- cut tens of billions of dollars in "wasteful spending" (where are those tens of billions of dollars in "wasteful spending"?

- cut investments in "unproven" missile defense systems (like the one that has proven itself effective already, to protect us from nuclear attack?)

- not weaponize space (leaving communist China, Russia and other countries to do so at will)

- slow our development of future combat systems (allowing our many enemies around the world to catch up and surpass us

- set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons (implying the U.S.--which is the only country the president has authority over--wouldn't have them, while North Korea, Syria, Iran and other countries aggressively pursue them)

- seeking this goal, will not develop new nuclear weapons, will seek a ban on the production of fissionable materials, and will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert (the same Russia that helped Iraq against us in 2003, the same Russia that has begun buzzing our airspace as they did during the Cold War)

- achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal

Go ahead. See for yourself:


Braden said...

I know it's not easy to talk to a hawk about peace, but there once was a man who tried. You might be familiar with him. "Blessed are the peacekeepers" was one of his more famous lines...

Now there are some things on your list which may be bad ideas. But I fail to see how someone who calls himself Christian would oppose taking thousands of nuclear missiles off hair-trigger alert.

Let me play out a little scenario for you:

US radar detects incoming targets over the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean. Believing it to be a preemptive Russian strike, the US missiles are launched against their pre-determinded targets in Russia and will arrive in 15 minutes.

Russia sees the incoming missiles and launches theirs at pre-determined US targets. Arrival time: 15 minutes. Both the Russian and US warheads are MIRVS, Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles. Once in space, the MIRVS open and release a dozen or so 50 kT warheads individually targeted at US and Russian cities, and at least one of them against Ellsworth Air Force Base, home of America's B-1 Bomber fleet.

The death toll from the first few minutes numbers in the hundreds of millions. But they are the lucky ones. Prevailing winds will carry the fallout for miles, rendering most of the continental US uninhabitable for weeks. Rates of birth defects and cancer will skyrocket in the coming years. And it was all because a radar operator mistook a meteor shower for an enemy strike.

Honestly tell me you think Jesus would have supported the construction and possession of weapons of mass genocide. Honestly tell me someone who begged us to turn the other cheek would find the use of nuclear weapons against innocent civilians morally OK.

He wouldn't. So why do you?

Bob Ellis said...

That man, whom I am familiar with, also said, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." And "if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." And also said through his apostle Paul that government "does not bear the sword for nothing."

This Christ is the same one who was a member of the Trinity when the entire planet was wiped out except 8 people on a boat with some animals.

This same Christ is the same one who was a member of the Trinity when Sodom was reduced to a smoking ash heap.

And this same Christ is the same one who will still be a member of the Trinity during all the destruction that is coming as described in the book of Revelation.

Having got the "Christ is a pacifist" nonsense out of the way, let's move on to examine your doomsday scenario.

We lived under that "hair trigger" alert for some 40 years, and great care was taken to prevent the kind of accidental launch you talked about. And I don't know if he's truly talking about a "hair trigger" alert, because while we do still maintain a high state of readiness, our nukes went off what is usually known as "hair trigger alert" back in 1992.

I was fortunate and honored to work around a fair amount of that hairtrigger apparatus. During the Cold War, I was stationed in Omaha at Strategic Air Command headquarters where we also kept at least one "Looking Glass" airborne command post in the air 24/7 for 40 years, waiting and ready for a real nuclear launch from the Soviets. That ready strength kept the Soviets from thinking they could get away with a first strike that would cripple us before we could strike back.

I also worked at a GLCM (Ground Launched Cruise Missile) base in England. These were intermediate-range nuclear missiles aimed at the Soviets. They could, at a moment's notice, leave their hardened bunkers on the base in mobile missile launchers and go out and hide in the countryside, keeping them safe from a Soviet first strike. They were an excellent deterrent to Soviet aggression--so excellent that the Soviets came to the negotiation table in 1988 because they knew they couldn't beat our GLCMs. I saw those missiles decomissioned and moved out, along with hosting several Soviet inspection teams (as our teams also went to the Eastern Bloc to verify Soviet missiles were removed). Here again, strength kept the peace.

Finally, I was stationed here in South Dakota at Ellsworth Air Force Base where I often worked around alert nuclear B-1 bombers. These were a nuclear force which could be deployed before open hostilities, as a statement of imminent strength, or launched immediately upon notice of nuclear attack. I was also personally there the afternoon President George H.W. Bush took those bombers off alert and we packed away the nukes from the alert pad. This was in 1992, of course, after the Soviet Union and it's threat was only a memory.

If we hadn't been ready to strike back with devastating force, that would have been an invitation to the Soviets to attack our allies and us. They had told us repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, that their goal was nothing short of complete and total world domination. You might recall that Nikita Khrushchev, one of the more reasonable Soviet premiers, said "We will bury you."

To evil people who do not share our sensibilities and our value for human life, weakness is always an invitation to violence. The weakness of Europe and the appeasement of Hitler is a perfect illustration of this. As is the weakness shown by Jimmy Carter, which resulted in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and numerous Soviet encroachments in Africa and South America. More recently, we have seen it with Bill Clinton's impotent response to multiple acts of terrorist aggression which culminated in the 911 attack, and the fact that we have not had any such attacks since President Bush demonstrated that such aggression would be met with decisive force.

Strength and a readiness to use it against an evil aggressor has always been and will always be the best tool to ensure peace.

Neither Obama nor Biden has the slightest understanding of this critical truth, which is why I am no-kidding greatly fearful for our country if Obama wins in November.

Anonymous said...

Well said, Mr. Ellis. Adding to your list, it was Jimmy Carter that gave radical Islamists the opening they had been waiting for to invade the West. When Carter failed to act decisively to the attack and imprisonment of U.S. embassy staff in Tehran in 1979 the radical Muslims knew that the United States could be attacked with impugnity with little chance of serious retaliation. Had the US responded with overwhelming force to that attack we might have been spared hundreds more, culminating in the attack on the WYC and the loss of 3,000 lives.

When Jesus said at the Sermon on the Mount "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God" (Matthew 5:9) He might have been talking about the soldiers who give of themselves to resist evil and protect innocent lives. Since there will always be evil in this fallen world peace can only be bought with the efforts of good people who are willing and able to resist that evil.

Clicky Web Analytics