Here again
OCTOBER 5, 06: Back again after a long detour; I do not claim to be a prophet, but check out my last post from 3 years ago in light of DPRK nuke test threats:
I just read an excellent article by James S. Robbins about the North Korean situation.
We all know now you can bet Jr.'s Gameboy that there are nukes in the DPRK arsenal and only slightly lower odds that one of them may be parked on a ballistic missile that could strike anywhere in South Korea or Japan and, maybe, just maybe, one that could strike Los Angeles.
Now they will surely build more and there's not much we can do but watch, growl and apply economic pressure. In a nation where all those millions of tons of grain (compliments of James Earl Carter, useful idiot extraodinaire) go to feed a massive army while the people eat grass and tree bark, there is no doubt a food and fuel oil embargo would hurt, but the evil Kim will "tough it out" I'll wager until he has a few more big 'uns.
Now I'm sure some of you may have noticed that the concept of SDI has received a less than fair hearing in the press; in particular the big three networks--all but Fox News Network on cable--and, not long ago, a hatchet job partially funded by you and all other working Americans on PBS. There is a conga line of "concerned scientists," ex-Carter Administration officials and even some ex-military that all say it's too unreliable, will take too long to be reliable, or is just plain impossible. As we sit bathed in the glow of our monitors and light bulbs we can thank the almighty that Thomas Edison did not have their drive and perseverance.
Since taking office the president and his people have said that rogue nations posed a particular threat to the US in terms of WMDs. They are deploying the first system on a frozen hell of a place called Fort Greeley, Alaska, that will be ideal for intercepting missiles that might be launched from the general area of, let's say, the DPRK. Like so many other things said/done/proposed by Bush and his seasoned team, it now looks almost prophetic. But back to the way we see the story covered or not covered:
It seems like a principle of startling clarity that there is a moral imperative in continuing to develop and deploy SDI. I am not the first to say this, but it should not be lost on any of us that while our taxes go to helping fund Bill Moyer's leftist preaching from the pulpit of anti-Americanism, exploring everything from the moral implications of the flush toilet and the environment to a Bush administration he claims is owned lock stock and (oil) barrel by Exxon, while various television news outlets interview people who talk about man's obligations to lower species and plants and conservatives are routinely characterized as people who gleefully trash the planet, none will even touch the idea of the morality in attempting to safeguard millions of lives.
The all-so-reasonable arguments trip off the tongues of the concerned scientists, et al: "the cost of the job is out of proportion to the threat" is the favorite. They are not saying that it is doomed to fail, that it might not save LA or Portland, but just that it costs so darned much. First of all, when corporations dare to make such dollars-to-lives analyses these same people call them the devil and try to sue them out of existance. Second, Congress has appropriated $8 billion a year for missile defense, and another 1.5 billion for the next two years to help with deployment at Ft. Greeley. In 1999, according to the General Accounting Office, Medicare fraud alone cost $13.5 billion. When was the last time the New York Times or CNN asked about the morality of a system that allows theft on a level higher than the GDP of the majority of nations on the planet? I mean, sure, it saves lives, but look at the cost. And yes, missile defense has the potential to save lives right away. The possibility that we could knock down a first strike without expending a single missile in our nuclear arsenal and be left locked and loaded is a powerful detterent in itself, don't be led to think otherwise.
It IS the moral thing to do. It is a moral imperative.
