I take your point about less commonality, at least vis a vis the current U.S administration. However, I don't see much of a long-term issue with a few more U.S. soldiers, if any. BTW, there may be 150 stationed here (Alert, DHQ, etc.), but there are a lot more visiting (Suffield, etc.).
Why isn't anyone asking the politicians (U.S. and Canadian) to demonstrate
1) a realistic missile threat, and
2) that NMD is a realistic means of countering it.
Does anyone seriously think North Korea is more likely to send a nuclear missile than a boat into New York harbour? The former would ensure retaliation, while the latter could be deniable.
A nuke from a rouge nation might kill, at worst, 5 million people (e.g., dead center New York - my guess only). IF NMD can stop that sometime in the next 50 years, at a cost of 50 billion, you are talking 10,000 per person. How many lives would be saved if that kind of money were spent elsewhere? Maybe in education versus fast-food diets? Detection equipment for boat-borne nukes?
-g |
