Third Party & Independents: Archives

There is no point to building a missle defense system that they know won’t work. Well, the only point is political. To make it seem like something is being done when in fact nothing is. I think deploying this 10 billion a year boondoggle is actually counter-productive to security. We have managed to meticulously control every aspect of our tests and still have failed miserablly. I don’t think this is in any way a show of strength. It, in fact, demonstrates out-of-touch management, poor, inadequate or impossible engineering, and an obvious flaw in our defenses.

Funny how the United States is ALWAYS responsible for what other countries do or don’t do while at the same time people want us to stop having to ‘babysit’ the rest of the world.

Oh, and I forgot to mention. We didn’t need the Russian test to know the missle defense shield wouldn’t work. Simple logic has been enough ever since that pitiful video “simulation” presented back in Reagan’s time.

bugcrazy, yep, sounds like a serious management problem to me. And Bush is in his 5th year as manager. The errors of this administration are mounting in number and the public is painfully and slowly waking to the realization of their voting choice. It is just so sad that my daughter will have to pay such a heavy price for the public’s slumber and ignorance about legislation, policy, politics and their leadership.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know not to deploy a system that doesn’t work, but that doesn’t mean rocket scientists shouldn’t be allowed to try and create one that will work.

Russia is not what this shield is about in the first place. With thousands of warheads and even more missiles, they could overcome almost anything conceivable. Rather, this system - if it can be made to work - will be an effective defense against countries like North Korea, who could not deploy thousands of missiles. Someday this could mean the difference between San Francisco (or Tokyo) and a crater, forestalling a tragedy that would make the tsunami look small by comparison.

But that is if - and only if - it works. Citizens and legislators should keep funding the project for now, I think, but if and when it becomes apparent that progress is not being made, the plug should be pulled.

Chops, I have a perpetual motion machine which uses its own motion as an energy source which I would like you to invest in. Send me an address and I will send you a prospectus. :-)

Something like a 10th or a trillion dollars now spent on something that continues to have little or no choice of accomplishing the deterrence and interception it is intended for. At what point does the American tax payer say I won’t throw good money after bad? We are already locked into a 10 Trillion dollar national debt, minimum. Do you propose we stop at 15 trillion, 20 trillion, 100 trillion, or simply when our nation collapses under the weight of its own foolish spending?

Rationality is needed. We need to ration our resources toward those efforts with a high degree of probability of giving us a return on the investment and avoid those which have little probability. This is economics 101, infinite desire and limited resources, how does one choose, wisely?

David -
You’re quite right that this and every other potential program must be weighed against each other as competing claims on our limited budget. And I absolutely believe we should remain within that budget.

Like you, I opposed the war in Iraq. There may (or may not) be some benefits in the long run for the Iraqis, the world, and the U.S.A. However, it is almost impossible to imagine a scenario in which the benefits outweigh the cost, which is between $100 and $200 billion in federal outlays, plus billions in lost Iraqi productivity, plus billions lost in the wobbly oil market, plus thousands of human lives.

Comparatively, the Star Wars system is a bargain. A lone nuke could cost the U.S. or an ally trillions of dollars in damage and hundreds of thousands of lives. The cost? Between half a billion and a billion dollars a year.

According to the Council for a Livable World (http://www.clw.org/coalition/nmdbook00cost.htm), the cost at this stage will be $30 billion over 15 years, or 2 billion per year. It may not be the best use of taxpayer money, but it’s better than a whole lot of others, Iraq foremost.

The whole premise of this post is wrong. Putin is on board with the missile defense concept and has been since he met Bush in Slovenia in 2001. Putin recognizes the threat from rogue states to his south and supports the idea.

Russian and Chinese nukes could overwhelm our systems. Keeping out their missiles has not been the goal since the 1980s. Everybody knows that except people who want to set up straw men. The system is geared to protecting against accidents and rogue launches and making an enemy uncertain of the success of a first strike.

You can argue whether or not it will work. I am not confident myself in the technology. But it is not a new cold war.

Jack, I would expect Bush not to see the threat of the head of Russia, a former KBG agent, throwing democracy off and reentrenching dictatorial power for himself over the nation, while at the same time building weapons that we can’t stop. But, I would have thought you would see the potential threat here, requiring a cold war escalation of power, offense and defense.

I stand corrected however, on the point of cold war with Russia. We are entering cold war with Russia, Egypt (newly acquired nuclear science), Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, China, etc. The world is entering a renewed era of nuclear arms races and escalation of nuclear powered weapons.

I will stand by my words that the President’s withdrawal from the ABM treaty was a grave mistake with consequences we are only now just beginning to see arise.

Chops, not to mention the huge opportunity cost of having committed those resources to invading Iraq. Every dollar spent there, was taken away from someone or some aspect of American life, culture, and environment also in need. In reality, the cost of invading Iraq was double the actual figure, what was spent, and what was lost here by spending it there.

Young people, you will rue the day you did not turn out at the polls to unseat this President and Republican Congress who are spending your future earnings like drunken Democrats.

Young people did turn out in record numbers. It’s just that, so did everyone else.

David—

I agree with your premise the missile defense system will never work, and we are entering a new era in which nuclear proliferation is the unspoken hydra on the table. China is the next big threat unless, Russia once again asserts itself in the Western Pacific and from the looks of things in Russia the bear is awakening under Putin’s leadership. Little by little he is consolidating power and re-instituting the power of the central government. Yugos (sp) is just the beginning. By seizing the company’s assets, Putin gains assess to cold hard currency, something Russia will need to rebuild its military and become a world player once again.

Meanwhile we are in danger of becoming yesterday’s news unless we can find away to counter the Chinese both economically and increasingly militarily. The Chinese are just biding their time, waiting until we lack the will to respond, or the world cannot afford to respond before they invade Taiwan. Then what? Will this spell the beginning of the end of American (economic and military) dominance and influence in the world? Will we then have to retreat to our own boarders once again? But how can we if we need the world to supply our every need?

Man, this is not time to be sattled with a President with no vision and very little intellectual savvy…

Thanks for your comments, Mr. Martin. I agree with them, except for one inference. If I am misinterpreting the inference below, I stand corrected.

I don’t believe China has designs on global empire. I don’t believe China has demonstrated an aggressive expansionist intent. Mao Tse Tung and his Communist idealism are dead. Replaced, in my view, with pragmatists, who as heads of their nation, and in concert with a people’s elected representative Congress, have accepted the inordinate difficulties of managing a population and geographic nation as large as China is.

Being pragmatist in their implementation of the the 3 gorges dam project, population control, and delicate balance with Taiwan, insisting it is part of China, but, taking no overt actions to incorporate it, I believe the leadership in China would not even dream of asking for the responsibility of ruling the world. It is just too damn hard to manage what they have.

Taiwan is China’s Cuba. China recognizes that if Taiwan is recognized as an independent state, Taiwan could host China’s opponents just a few miles off its coastline. Just as the U.S. did not want Russian missiles sitting in Cuba, China does not want American or NATO missiles sitting just off her coastline.

All that said, the point I am making is that we need to effectively stay competitive with China economically, and innovation and technological development in the areas of space, medicine, Information management, and goods and services distribution technology are some of the ways to do that. But, to accomplish that, we need to improve our educational system, lower the cost of higher education, and vastly improve teaching quality and standards.

Miltarily, we need only remain capable of effective response in order to continue to act as a check and balance against China’s military. China will match whatever military superiority we establish as a defensive necessity. Hence, attempting to create military superiority over China is pointless and a huge waste of American resources.

As long as China is signaling defensive military parity, the U.S. need not expend huge sums seeking some short lived superiority. Miltarily, I view Russia as a greater threat than China. However, I would like to see renewed international efforts to move China to relinquish Tibet. I said, move, not force. Through inducements, not threats.

Josh, point well taken.

Inducement, that is a great idea. Maybe we could just induce Al Qaeda and all of the other terrorists to give up also. Maybe we could induce George Steinbrenner to not spend $200 million dollars on the Yankees payroll. Maybe we could induce natural disasters to avoid highly populated areas in the developing world. This will be better than sliced bread.

Peter, what is your alternative?

David,
Isn’t the definition of insanity to repeat the same process over and over and expect a different result?
How can America expect to compete with China?
They have a vastly greater labor pool that will work for pennies on the dollar. They allready have an import/export advantage on the U.S. They have the resources at hand and don’t have the environmental restrictions we have.

I am reminded of a quote from Generalisimo Chang Kai Chek during WW2.
The Chinese casualty rate was astronomical against the invading Japanese. When asked how he could defeat the Japanese with those odds he said, “pretty soon they will run out of Japanese”.

Rocky, if we will get our heads out of our posteriors we can and will compete through innovation and creative thinking, one of the greatest assets America has. Won’t happen though if we keep throwing away money, and refuse to invest in brain power, education, government revenues from government sponsored research royalty returns from private industry, etc. etc. etc.

The means are available. We don’t have the leadership with the vision to recognize them.

Jack, even if star wars could be made to work, it would be wasted money. Reason: our enemies would move from ballistic delivery systems to hand carried systems. Immensely cheaper for them as well.

David,

Lately you seem to have your budget cutting cap on, I like that.
My question would be, are you open to cutting everything, or just the military spending?

Beagle, anyone who is for cutting nothing or cutting everything, is not a rational person, IMO. A rational person would ration our revenues in a budget that puts forth fewer cuts for the most needed and important budgetary items, and greater cuts for less needed and less important budgetary items. I consider myself a rational person, hence, the answer to your question is NO. I would not cut everything, nor would I cut an equal percentage from all budget items. Across the board percentage cuts in the budget is a simple minded approach which demonstrates a lack of ability or will to prioritize and evaluate needs in multiple dimensions.

What I love is the use of the Patriot act to go after the guy using a laser pointer in his back yard to teach his child astronomy. Now he faces a 25 year sentence. This kind of absurdist prosecution is why I’m beginning to feel we are living under a Christianofacist regime.

He didn’t blind a pilot. There was no way he could have tracked the plane with a small pen laser or hurt anyone. Stupid? Perhaps. Dangerous? Unlikely. This is some prosecutor on a power trip.

When I was a child my dad and I were in the backyard,using our homemade telescope when we noticed a plane shining a very bright light and running a pattern over our house. My Dad since he worked with the local Air Force base knew they were testing a photograhy/ mapping sytem. He brought out a large landing light and shone it back up at the plane as a prank. I’m sure they all had a laugh when the photos came back with this intense light on it. Silly? Yes. Dangerous? Not at all.

Beagle, President Bush is the guy making massive cuts to the military’s budget. All because he refuses to roll back his idiotic tax cuts that disproportionately favor the wealthy.

We saw this wacked-out priority with homeland security, too. For the current GOP leadership, giving money to people who don’t need it trumps national defense.

I would never order cuts based on an across the board % for everything.
Some things would get more, some would get nothing at all. Everything would get the pork and waste cut out, or I would fire everyone in charge of that program.
Before we blame ANY President, from ANY party for pork and waste, we need to give them line-item-veto.

As far as taxes go, I don’t like the current system at all.

Beagle, the line item veto only gets rid of one set of problems while adding a whole other set. You want a Democrat or Republican President line item vetoing all the compromises made by his party in Congress to get a bill together? The Line Item veto will literally create a one party Government. The Line Item Veto will delete the meaning of moderate and compromise in Congress and bring extremism at some point to our government.

The President has a veto pen, he can use it until Congress hammers out a compromise with the President, while the American Public puts pressure one or both branches of government. The Line item veto also will in many scenarios eliminate public scrutiny over differences between Congress and the Executive.

It will afford a more efficient budget process in some cases. In our search for a more perfect government, we should not abandon the wisdom of the founding fathers. Moderation and compromise have kept our nation from extremes. The line item veto will swing open the gates to extremist government action be virtually creating one party government, giving the President the power to delete from every bill anything put forth by the opposition party which voters elected to represent their interests. Might as well just do away with congress altogether and reinstate the King.

David my friend,

The senate could still overide any veto with 60 votes.
Forceing an overide vote would make congress sign their name to the pork bs.

As it stands now, the pork is hidden and for the most part goes unnoticed.

If you have a better idea, I’m open to it.
I don’t want my son, or your kids to pay for worthless debt.

We agree on many things, this could be one of them.

Beagle, the minority party couldn’t. That is my point. Take the current situation. R’s and D’s bargain, fit, and twist to come up with a budget, giving and taking. R’s ask for money for their state pet projects, in return they relent to D’s getting a few pork projects in. Then the bill goes to Bush with a memo as to which pork will bring R’s votes in their home states and which pork will bring D’s votes. Then the Pres. with the line item veto, vetoes out all the D’s pork, keeping R’s pork. Next election, incumbent R’s get reelected and a number of D’s get ousted.

This could of course work the other way around when D’s return to power. It will result in one party government.

Additionally, what if the Line Item veto is extended to other bills, like the Medicare Reform or SS reform, or a host of other issues that will come up. The minority party might as well resign, for they will not be able to represent their voters interests at all. All compromise will be one sided.

David,

As I said, I’m open to your ideas also???

Democracy is sloppy and messy! All I can offer is what the founding fathers prescribed; an informed public which uses anti-incumbency at the polls to force responsibility. Ultimately, any and all laws designed to make government responsible are worthless in a democracy unless the voting public holds government responsible.

That is why I am very skeptical of any modern nation’s longevity. Specialization of society leads to each attending his own specialty and leaving the rest to the experts. Unfortunately, in a democracy, as the Greeks found out, that means leaving government to the politicians. Inevitable doom for democracy, the way I see it.

Mr. Remer,

On the Chinese military stratagem, I respectfully disagree. The Chinese have come to a point where they have matched the U.S. military’s technological superiority. In modern warfare nothing is gain be the even match; no military battle was ever won by an even match. Superiority in some area of warfare is must in order to win the battle at hand.

That said, I would point you to the following article which discusses the recent growth of the Chinese Navy: China’s Growing Navy Worries U.S., I think you will find it enlightening. When I retired from the Navy in 1995, I worked for the Naval Security Group in naval intelligence, and were just starting to take a much closer look at Chinese Naval activity. We would be foolish to think that Chinese interest lie just in Taiwan.

China and the U.S. are insulated by Mutally Assured Destruction, to a point. On this I agree.

But, in the last decade, I have not seen any action of any kind that would portend expansionist military activity by China. Some might say they had a sub off the coast of Japan. Well, we have subs, I am sure off the coasts of a number of nations. That does not expansionist policy make.

“Well, we have subs, I am sure off the coasts of a number of nations. That does not expansionist policy make.”

David,
That’s only because we have expanded about as far as we can.

The war begins and ends with mankind’s greed, ignorance and fear. Isn’t the definition of insanity to repeat the same process over and over and expect a different result? I think your right. But are you ready to try something different? What’s more important; the law or the rights of it’s citizens, culture or diversity, the money or the creator of the system behind it or the life of one individual weighed against the life of one thousand. If nobody keeps count at a sports tournament how can we know the score at the end of each match? And if we appoint someone to count the score, how can we trust the result, if the score counter is not subjected to the rules of the game. How many monitors’ do we need to monitor the monitor’s? Is this not a recurring fraction? The oldest system put in place is that of the master and the slave, the leader and the follower and the law practices which differ according to the current regime. To have order in society, somebody has to dictate it and somebody has to follow. Unless…