Pastimes
|
|
National Missile Defense-What's the holdup?
|
| An SI Board Since February 1999 |
| Posts |
SubjectMarks |
Bans |
| 2 |
0 |
0
|
| Emcee:
nuke44
|
Type:
Unmoderated
|
|
The White House earmarked $6.6 billion for a missile defense program in the budget President Clinton submitted only three weeks ago. Now that Congressional Republicans want to make that missile defense a reality by forcing a vote on immediate implementation of that program, President Clinton now reneges, saying that he will veto any such vote. It's apparent that the White House never had any intention of actually allowing such a system to be implemented. It's not the expense of such a program that has caused the White House to drag it's feet. The monies earmarked for it on paper are probably already scheduled to be allocated as paybacks to political allies to fund porkbarrel projects under the guise of a missile defense program. The funding is there. The technology to build the system is there. The need for such a system is undeniable and becoming more critical by the month.
There is no logical reasoning that can legitimately explain why the Clinton White House has stonewalled, delayed, lied, and vetoed it's way out of a National Missile Defense system for six years now. Ironically, some of the very forces that this system would defend against have become significantly stronger and more dangerous over the last six years through the actions of this same administration.
Anyone who knows anything about the world's ICBM forces can tell you that currently there is no system in existence that can stop a nuclear attack by ICBM's once they have been launched. Some people seem to be under the impression that there is some sort of technological wonder employed by our armed forces that can deter such an attack once it has been launched. They have been watching too many movies. In the past, and at present, our only recourse to such an attack would be to respond with an all out attack of our own, in effect killing them after they have killed us, Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.). Given world events and the ideologies of some of the world's powers, the day will come when this Armegeddon scenario will no longer deter such an attack. At the same time, possessing the ability to defend against such an attack and then to respond by devastating our attacker would be insurance against this nightmare for years to come. Maybe even long enough to figure out how to get out of this macabre chessgame that we've been involved in for over fifty years without anybody ever trying to "push the button".
Why is Clinton playing such a deadly game with our lives and with the future of this country?
|
|
|
