Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: moby_dick who wrote (181019)	9/14/2001 1:32:04 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769670

The Taliban Dems caught with their pants down - again: The Next Attack Can anyone doubt that if the terrorists behind Tuesday's attacks had had access to a ballistic missile, they would have used it? Why settle for toppling the World Trade Center if you can destroy all of New York in an instant, without having to go to the trouble of sneaking a crew over the border and arranging for pilot training in Florida? It's hard to believe, but there are some people who think the main lesson of Tuesday's attack is that we don't need national missile defense. Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy looked at the carnage and noted that, "Today our threat is not a threat of somebody launching a nuclear missile against us." So because we couldn't defend against hijacked airplanes that kill thousands, we aren't supposed to defend ourselves against threats that could kill millions. We trust this won't be the lesson drawn by the American public. Hijacking a jet and flying it into a target is now yesterday's threat. The new security to be imposed on airports nationwide means a hijacked plane probably won't be the weapon of choice for the next attack. Instead, terrorists are likely to trade up to weapons that do even more damage, in particular a ballistic missile tipped with nuclear, biological or chemical warheads. With some two dozen countries already in the business of producing ballistic missiles, and with Saddam Hussein already having lobbed a few at Israel during the Gulf War, that's hardly a far-fetched possibility. Yes, there are plenty of other threats -- a cupful of germs that can be released in the subway, or a horizon-hugging cruise missile launched from a submarine off shore, or the proverbial suitcase bomb. But because we can't always protect against every contingency doesn't mean we shouldn't protect against those that we can. As long as the U.S. remains unprotected against ballistic missiles, launching one will be appealing to any adversary. The reply is often made that a Saddam, say, would never launch a missile attack because the U.S. would respond with massive force. But Saddam wants missiles not merely to strike at the U.S. but also to reduce our ability to act militarily. A President without defenses against missiles would have to think twice before he deployed U.S. forces to the Gulf or to defend some ally. And it is precisely the U.S. ability to project force abroad that is likely to deter the Irans, Iraqs, North Koreas and other states that sponsor and protect Osama bin Laden and other terrorists. In short, missile defense is as much a defense against hijacked airliners as it is against missiles. Before Tuesday's attacks, Senate Democrats had staged their own raid on President Bush's missile defense proposal, cutting back on even the $8.3 billion he had requested. In the aftermath of Tuesday's attacks, both Democrats and Republicans pledged to set aside differences over missile defense to focus on new strategies for dealing with terrorism. Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the Senate's most implacable foe of missile defense, struck the right note: "We cannot be divided at this time on any subject." He said he would try to work out an agreement with the Republicans, but if that failed he would defer any fight. The ranking Republican on the Committee, John Warner, agreed: "We've got to build a bridge on missile defense." The President's plan for missile defense ought to go forward with all speed. It's a realistic blueprint to develop and deploy a layered defense against ballistic missiles in all three phases of their trajectory -- boost, mid-course and terminal -- and builds on promising research and already-deployed theater missile technology. If anything, and in Tuesday's wake, it may be too modest. interactive.wsj.com Looks like the Taliban Dems are giving up the their fight against reason. For the moment.