Alaska Democrat Speaks the Truth!
By Steven Osborne | Tuesday, May 26th, 2009 | Catch-AllAlaskan Democratic Senator Mark Begich has broken through the political smokescreen of his party. Sen. Begich has petitioned the Obama Administration to refrain from cutting missle defence spending at this critical juncture in foreign policy. He has rightly pointed to the fact that Alaska is a critical “front line of defence.”
This Democratic Senator has just made a point that Governor Palin and others have been making all along; we must not cut our missle defence efforts. In response to the North Korean nuclear and missle tests yesterday, Governor Palin stated that we must not cut our missle defence capabilities.
Senator Begich and Governor Palin speak to this issue with a great deal of credibility. Alaska hosts Fort Greely, which is one of our nations critical missle defence posts, and would likely intercept any incoming missle that could come from North Korea or China. It was often overlooked during the campaign of last year, just how much credibility Governor Palin had on military issues, such as her receiving briefings on priviledged information.
The bottom line here is that a Democratic Senator and a Republican Governor are working together to put our nation’s security first. That is something that our nation desperately needs at this moment in history.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Steven Osborne is a grassroots conservative activist from Central Virginia. He is currently furthering his education at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. In addition to writing for Bearing Drift he is also a columnist for the Christian Law Journal.
Comments
6 Responses to "Alaska Democrat Speaks the Truth!"
Truth? Ha! It sounds to me like he is a true Alaskan Senator. He knows how much Alaska relies on federal dollars (back in 2002, 1 in 3 jobs in Alaska came from federal dollars, and that probably hasn’t changed). He’s just being a smart politician in that regard. If this isn’t just a cry for more pork for the State of Alaska, why is missile defense a worthy system? How effective will a ground based system be at thwarting any countermeasures employed? And how likely is it that North Korea will launch a nuke at the US? Shouldn’t we make big expenditures like this on the basis of risk?
Tex, he is being a good politician looking out for Alaska, but it can be argued this “pork” is necessary.
North Korea is ruled by a “hand grenade” waiting to make an irrational decision. You’d be right that we’re not much in danger at this point, but how much development will be necessary to threaten us? And yes, our ground system will be able to handle N. Korea through years of development. If we can defend other nations from Alaska, I’m not opposed to that either.
Basis of risk? One potential penetrating missle is risk enough for me. The idea that we can defend ourselves at least partially and fully obliterate the enemy provides a better deterrent than M.A.D. ,which N.Korea isn’t even up to. Still, you have to hope you’re dealing with somebody wishing to live for a deterrant to have much effect. I’m not sure ‘ol Kim Jong is “dealing with a full deck”. Therefore, a missle defense is a good idea.
To update things: North Korea has declared that the 1953 Armistace no longer applies. They have also threatened war with South Korea. Fmr. Ambassador John Bolton revealed on Greta Van Sustern last night that Iran has been funding North Korea.
There is a real danger here that North Korea and Iran could have an alliance similar to the Nazi-Japanese alliance during WW2. North Korea has moved into a militaristic form of government. It is entirely possible that Kim Jong is just a figure-head for the generals that are actually running the government. With the alliance that we ae seeing between Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Venezuala, we could have World War 3 on our hands. It is in our best interest to be prepared.
Britt, of the successful tests of the missile defense system, I have not heard of any that utilized even some basic countermeasures. If there have been such tests, then I would be more inclined to support it. But if North Korea can just throw out some decoys or cool the warhead and get around it, what’s the point?
Steven, I think you are overplaying North Korea’s hand here. The players you are talking about do not have enough military power to start WWIII. Iran’s interest is in the preservation of the Islamic Republic despite the wishes of its people. A nuke helps them ensure that people who want to get rid of the government within the country do not get help from the outside. And let’s not forget, Arabs don’t like Iran in general. And a good deal of Sunnis consider Shia (the predominant Islamic sect in Iran) to be heretics and blasphemers for their belief in the 12th Imam (the Mahdi). So, it’s doubtful that they could get a lot support outside their narrow circle unless there were a wholesale attack on Islam.
Venezuela is run by their version of Huey Long. Venezuela would never jeopardize their relationship with us in such a way. Their economy depends on us buying their oil. And more specifically, there are refineries in Louisiana that are the only ones that can process that heavy, heavy crude that makes up some of their exports. So, I wouldn’t worry about them either.
North Korea is in throws of its own demise. So, yeah the hard liners in their military are going to go all out to preserve the dictatorship. But they are so dependent on China for basic supplies; that should they do something truly foolish, China can always cut them off at the knees.
Tex, I don’t think N. Korea is at a point where they have even basic countermeasures. Even so, if the land based defense is totally flawed and ineffective, then the Russians are worried about nothing?
Just as terrorists are on a mission of continual improvements in committing terror, the US and free nations everywhere, should be on continual improvement programs of their own. We need to be better at assessing their programs, convincing them to give up their programs, finding ways to destroy them pre-emptively, and yes, intercept them after launch/deployment. We also need to be able to devastate potential enemies with as little colateral damage to bordering nations.
Some basic countermeasures like aluminum balloons are well within North Korea’s capabilities. And if they have the wherewithal to develop a nuke and missile technology to send it to far off places in the first place, I wouldn’t consider a cooling system for the warhead to be outside their capability.
Russia is interested in holding on to its former imperial glory (see also their smack down of Georgia). They also have a long history of being constantly invaded by foreigners which leads them to be overly cautious if not paranoid about these kinds of things. They have more than enough nuclear missiles to wipe out humanity. I doubt a ground based system in Poland is going stop all of those ICBMs especially the multi-warhead ones. So, this isn’t really about being worried about the system.
Terrorists and nations are two different things. Terrorists are not likely to launch a long range missile attack. They employ cheap, effective methods of destruction designed to reap the maximum amount of terror. They are more likely to smuggle a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon into the country. If we want to protect against them, we should be focusing on border security, import screening, tracking money laundering and protecting critical infrastructure. Instead of blowing this money on DoD, give it to law enforcement, the FBI, DOJ, Homeland Security and Treasury.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.