Thursday, April 9, 2009

The Trouble with Missiles

I've been following the fallout and verbal crossfire of the North Korean missile launch for the past few days, with the expected results. And based on what I've heard, I'm convinced that President Obama has completely forgotten history. And it may turn out to be the first step toward the kind of crisis you find in novels.

First of all, my response would have been to watch the missile until it hit its perigee (after all, it was a communication satellite(*cough, cough, bullshit*)), then shot the bastard down. It lets you see what Mighty Troll Kim Jong Il (apologies to all the trolls out there) and his little bitch regime is up to while sending a clear message: We can shoot down your shit, so don't piss in our Cheerios. Plus, you don't need to ask the UN to do nothing (not a typo, as they only say, they don't do).

Now before you start screaming about my warmongering or my disregard of other people's rights, or whatever the hell your blather about my sanity (or lack thereof) will be, I base this on a principle that dates back to before the beginning of this country and was most succinctly summed up by none other than Ronald Reagan:
Peace Through Strength

One of our country's early advocates of this concept was President John Adams. In his day, the threat was from invasions by England and France, and by attacks from the Barbary Pirates. He advocated a strong naval presence, the "Wooden Wall," to make the country secure. And he began this process in his four years, forging a peace that lasted until 1812.

In the 20th century, the surest keeper of the peace was the nuclear weapon. That began with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which through the death of thousands convinced Japan to forgo a fight that would have been a cost of life in the millions. Now having this weapon, and our eventual enemies getting this weapon, meant that it ended world wars that plagued the first half of the century. Instead, we were reduced to wars by proxy, and the constant unease of the Cold War. This continued until Reagan, with balls of steel and a touch of bullshitting, broke out the Strategic Defense Initiative, which was panned regularly, never implemented as a practical system, and was a key component in winning the Cold War. Well, that and joking about starting the bombing in five minutes and the whole evil empire thing. And spending enough to make our military really big.

But now we're in the 21st century. We've beaten all the big enemies (except China, and a war would cost them too much money (gotta love capitalism)). Most of the remaining countries that threaten us couldn't muster an army we couldn't bomb out of existence in a heartbeat. The only thing they could do would be to lob a missile at us.

Which brings us back to the likes of Kim the Turd Jong Il (apologies to turds in every bowl for that comparison). Maybe he'll be tucked in a bunker far away from us and won't mind if we bomb him after he shoots the missile. Maybe he'll sell the tech to one of those lovely terrorists who will light that candle in a heartbeat. Either way, it means that missile defense is absolutely the technology we need for defense.

Everything else I can see might be a debatable item. And we should look at our current expenditures and decide if we need to be everywhere we currently are. But that Obama decides to cut missile defense, responds to the zit on the ass of the world that is Kim Jong Il (apologies to ass acne) with stern words, and turns to the UN (Ugly and Nutless) to deal with him when he has the perceived might of the United States that could be brought to bear to keep ol Kimmy in check is a sign of rank weakness.

What else can I say, other than: Man up, Barry! A little swagger goes a long way, and Kim ain't going to like you anyway.

And more importantly (and seriously), talking is a good thing. But talk is cheap when you can't back it up.


Beth said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave Miller said...

John, why did you take the bait? She was trolling.

Here is the "Official Wikipedia Definition" of a troll.

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room.

Now to the post at hand.

The Missile.

So Patrick, you are taking the Gingrich path, though nuanced. He advocated bombing it on the launch pad, whereas you wanted to use it as a test for our missile defense system.

And what might I ask, would you say to the Chinese, who would be pretty pissed off as they did not, and do not support any real action against Mr. Turd? [your term]

Let us not forget that long before Obama was elected, our government, under the direction of GW, an others before him, made a decision to borrow $$$ [good ole American greenbacks] from the Chinese to deficit spend and fund the war effort.

This little understood action has essentially given the Chinese, with their somewhere in the area of 1 trillion US dollars in reserve, veto power over our foreign in areas where they might have an interest.

How might they have viewed this unilateral effort you are calling for?

Patrick M said...

"Beth": Bye.

For clarification, that wasn't really Beth, just a troll pretending to be. Luckily I pay attention.

John: As Dave said, you should never listen to trolls, or only respond with obscenities. Otherwise, welcome, and apologies for having to scrub the comment.

Here's your comment, with only the response to the troll scrubbed to avoid getting the abortion argument going again:

I have no idea what this has to do with the N. Korea missile launch subject, but since you opened to door, I’ll respond to you.

[deleted response to the stupid troll]

To get back to the N. Korea missile launch subject.
Hillary Clinton’s response was something like: , "hey you better stop it or else!" We will impose a sanction on you! in case you forget Bush is no longer in the WHITE HOUSE .... Obama is and his or Hillary warnings of consequence....or sanctions don’t mean a hill of beans, I got news for you Hillay, SANCTION WHAT? , Walmart TV that are made in Korea???
Like Kim Jong-il gives a damn about what she thinks or says!
We have to consider three very important facts. First, we know the N. Korean government hates us. Second, we know they have nuclear weapons. Third, they are demonstrating they can reach, not only us , but other country's as well with those nuclear weapons.

Before the launch president Nobama said--"if they launch a rocket it will be very provocative" Now after they call his bluff he says---'If they do that again it will be very provocative". If you were N. Korea would you take this Bozo seriously? They tested this fool and now are laughing all of us.
Maybe it's time for the Obama team to have another town hall meeting.

Patrick M said...

John: I thought of a better way to describe this:

Sometimes, in world politics, it's a matter of pulling out your balls and showing how big they are. Reagan pulled out a set of grapefruits. The Israelis are known for watermelon-sized balls. So far, Obama (and dear Mrs. Clinton) has shown Kim Jong Il marbles (which probably aroused the bastard (apologies to all bastards out there)).

Dave: Thanks for clarifying on the troll thing. But now I've had to add a new rule to my comments section.

And on to the missiles:

The point is to show we can easily destroy any missile they might want to launch. Bombing the launchpad, while also sending the message not to mess with us, also sends the message that you need to hide your missiles. Although, if the missile defense isn't working, then bombing would have been the way to go.

As for the Chinese, let them complain, then just defend our position. As dependent as we are on them, they are also dependent on us. So while they may fume and whine and posture, neither of us wants to start any kind of war.

The larger powers may protest. But it's critical we send the message to the tin horn dictators so we don't have to fight them.

Oh, and you shouldn't insult shit by comparing it to Kim without apologizing. :)

TRUTH 101 said...

What Reagan did was ramp up defense spending so much the Soviets collapsed trying to keep up. Now we are seeing irrational fear of the Chinese and Russians and "the terrorists" use that fear to keep this spending up and bankrupting us in the process. How many F22's do we need?

I am on the same page with you on the North Korea deal Patrick. Madeline Albright was the Queen of telling rogue bastards not to do it again or else. I was sure Hillary wouldn't take this silly phony brinksmanship path. So much for my powers of clairvoyance.

Don't delete Bro. Don't delete me,

Patrick M said...

101: I suspect part of Reagan's spending was catchup (as we were pretty soft after Vietnam and Carter. But it was more than just spending. It was about scaring the shit out of the Soviets. Reagan did that by sounding like he's have them all killed.

As I said (and have made clear in prior posts), there are many things wee need to examine, because the cold war mentality still exists, but missile defense is the one thing that should not be on the chopping block.

And yeah, I though Hillary had more balls than she's shown. I think Obama had her castrated.

And why would I delete you?

Arthurstone said...

The Soviet Union 'collapsed' for reasons other than RR's mad spending spree. Give Gorbachev, the Russian people, the Poles, Czechs et. al. credit. Though to be fair RR's 'peace through strength' has helped lead us to near economic collapse. And the militarism he espoused has led the way to compromising our core values.

Patrick M said...

Arthur: I can agree that it was not solely Ronald Reagan that brought about the collapse of the Soviets. But without that pressure, there would have been no change.

And while many of the things we did to defeat the Red Menace came back to bite us in the ass (Iraq (under Saddam) and Afghanistan (under the Taliban)), I would rather have to deal with the minor dictators than fight another superpower.

Gayle said...

Patrick, you need to check your comment section more often. See the above three comments. GADS! Some people are so warped!

Regarding your post, either Obama's arrogance is surpassed only by his ignorance, or else he does know history and simply ignores it. Arrogant people tend to do that.

I agree that the logical thing to do would have been to shoot down the idiot's missile, but that would have required common sense, something that is in very short supply these days.

Patrick M said...

Gayle: They posted it between noon and 2:30. But they're gone now as you can see.

BB-Idaho said...

There may be some global politics.
Elsewise the Bush admin would have
taken your advice when the N Koreans tested several missiles and a nuclear device a couple years back?

Patrick M said...

BB: I don't remember the circumstances (as I wasn't paying attention), but taking out a missile probably should have happened then. Then we wouldn't be dealing with it now.

Toad734 said...

So you, Mr. No Big Government, Mr. Don't raise my taxes, Mr. Don't raise my taxes just cut spending, is now saying that even though our biggest threat is suitcase bombs, guys with box cutters, life boats, and our own airplanes, are advocating spending billions of dollars on a missile defense system which may be effective some of the time, to protect ourselves from a nut in Korea who now has a missile which can hit the southern tip of the Aleutian Islands and knock out the Fox News satellite, and another nut in Iran who doesn't even have a Nuclear bomb yet and has missiles that can reach southern Europe??

Did I get that straight?

Box cutters, they used box cutters!

How many billions of dollars does this thing cost again?

If you didn't notice, we just solved our last big national crisis with three bullets. How much do you think that cost us?

Toad734 said...


Actually it was a Polish Trade Union that started it all, not Reagan and his Star Wars.

And if anyone really thinks Reagans intentions were to actually outspend the Soviet Union you are insane. Its a good bit of revisionist history that often gets associated with Reagan but it isn't true, it was just one of the consequences for Reagan spending a bunch on defense for all his California Defense Contractor friends who got him elected. Bush did the same thing with Halliburton and the Texas oil industry.

So along with the weekend, overtime pay, safety standards, maternity leave, health insurance, vacation time and sick days, you can thank a Union for the collapse of the Soviet Union, not Howdy Doodie.

Patrick M said...

Toad (AKA Mr Reduce Everyone to Simplistic Bullet Points): Suitcase bombs are one of the many threats we face, and is something that will blow up in one of our cities in the future. The other things can be solved by our armed people shooting the bad guys Ask the surviving Somali pirate. But a missile shield is one thing that will eliminate a particular danger, and will strengthen us without the need to stick as many troops all over the world. And it means we have to spend less in the long run.

So yes, you got that straight.

BTW, that wasn't a big national crisis. And it ended quite well.

Also, I don't discount the freedom movements in Poland for the part they played. As well, you shouldn't discount Reagan.

Toad734 said...

He played a role, just as JFK and every president before him but it isn't like he said, "Hey, Lets just outspend them".

No, thanks for saying it wasn't a big national crisis but you couldn't tell Fox News this. All they could say is that how horrible it was that Obama hadn't commented on it and that he was going to raise their taxes or some crap.

Ok, putting bullet proof glass and armor plating on your car will make you safer as well but are you more likely to die by a car crash or a drive by shooting whilst driving and is it worth the investment? I mean, I would take a missile shield if it were given to us but I don't know if I would spend so much on an experimental program.

I agree that countries like Iran and Korea wouldn't necessarily be detered by our retaliation if they were to launch a strike on the US but really, why would they? Kim Jong Il just wants attention and once we just tell him he is a bad ass or something he will go away.

Patrick M said...

Toad: It wasn't the spending. It was the testicular fortitude to scare the bastards.

Also, you have to stop watching Fox News in the skewed sound bites the Daily Kooks feed you. It's called context.

I don't get how the bulletproof glass thing relates to the missile shield. The shield is both protection AND a deterrent, as anyone who thinks about shooting a missile at us has to know we're going to stop it, then shoot one at them and they can't.

Honestly, I'm not sure why you're not on board something that means investing less in the military over the long run.

And we don't call Kimbo a bad ass, because that would be an insult to bad asses. And fat asses. And asses in general. And asshats. And ass monkeys. Etc.

Toad734 said...

Yes but that is what he wants. He had WMDs, said he had them, Iraq said they didn't and we couldn't find any yet we gave Saddam all that attention and invaded that country, not Korea. He just wants a little recognition for his efforts is all.

I don't just watch Fox News clips from the Daily Kos. In fact, every news story fed through my Comcast email account is a feed from Fox News and Fox News is in HD so it is in my channel flipping rotation because everyone needs something to laugh at when Comedy Central is showing reruns.

The point is that if you bullet proof your car, it will technically make you safer. Just as having a missile shield could technically make us safer. However, the facts show, that unless your are 50 cent, you are more likely to be killed in your car during an accident than by a shooting. What is more likely, N Korea and Iran get a missile and a bomb within the next 20 years that are capable of hiting cities in the United States and even though that means their utter destruction, they will launch the said missiles from N Korea or Iran? Or that a guy will hijack another plane and fly it into a bunch of buildings or someone will get a black market bomb from Russia and plant it in one of our cities, or that a bunch of bombers will one day appear over Seattle (from some nation which actually has a bunch of Bombers which can reach the US) and we send our Stealth F 22s for a surprise intercept and save the world??

Which of those three scenarios are more likely to happen and therefore, how should we spend our time, money and resources, considering we have very little money and resources?

They used box cutters!

Patrick M said...

First of all, you prepare for both.

And second, box cutters won't work anymore. Because the people on the plane will immediately gang rush the terrorists. 9/11 guaranteed that.

They'll hit us another way next time.