Note the word, Defense, in the title. Now it seems that Obama has intentions of marginalizing our ability to defend ourselves against nuclear, biological, or conventional missile attacks. This move of Obama’s is, at best, misguided. At worst, it could be disastrous.
Personally, I believe in dealing with people and foreign countries from a position of strength whenever possible. It is not usually necessary to exercise that strength, but if you simply don’t have it, your bargaining position is greatly reduced. That “speak softly, but carry a big stick” philosophy of Theodore Roosevelt’s strikes me as an excellent way to operate.
As a potential scenario, let’s (just for fun) posit that the world has completely disarmed, in terms of nuclear weapon capability, including the U.S. And a bit later on, tensions develop between us and, say, Iran. And just suppose Iran had just one more facility hidden away that the rest of the world didn’t know about. If Iran’s Ahmadinejad thought he could knock us to our knees by nuking New York City, thereby sowing chaos, destroying much of our economic infrastructure and a great many people, would he do it?
I don’t want to find out. Along with a lot of other good people, my son lives nearby and works in New York City.
I would rather we have the means to defend against anybody else’s weapons systems. I trust the U.S. not to go nuking other countries more than I trust other countries not to nuke the U.S. I want the U.S.A. to be a gentle giant – but still, a giant.
It may be that Obama dreams of a world without bombs, missiles, and warfare. While it would be really great if the world worked that way, I submit to you that this is the worst kind of wishful thinking.
In the meantime, we need impregnable defenses. Any attempt to eliminate them is just plain stupid.
Obama’s policy states in part: “It is the shared interest of all nations to act responsibly in space to help prevent mishaps, misperceptions and mistrust,” the new policy says in its opening lines. “Space operations should be conducted in ways that emphasize openness and transparency.”
Do you give any credence whatever to the idea that Iran or North Korea, for instance, would live up to that? Obama is gullible!
In any given group, one person (or nation) will eventually dominate, naturally, through force of arms or force of personality.
It is better to dominate than it is to submit. Especially if we have the moral conviction to dominate kindly.
Because there are no few countries out there that would not be restrained if they were in a position to dominate.