“I don’t believe in missile defense.” This is like a defensive coordinator on a football team saying “I don’t believe in defensive backs” for fear of provoking the opposing QB into throwing the ball against him all game. Presumably, what president-elect B. Hussein Obama meant by this statement was his belief that a defense against InterContinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) launched at us is a provocation. This fear of provocation has been shown throughout history to be an open invitation for an aggressor and the results have most often been needlessly disastrous, if only proper preparations had been employed.

B. Hussein Obama may also have meant that he doesn’t feel that missile defense technology is ready for prime time or worth it. Complex technology such as missile defense is, admittedly, a tough nut to crack. Successful demonstrations have occurred recently, however, unlike in the arena of other difficult and expensive government-financed experiments (“universal” healthcare comes to mind). The other difference is that the consequences of no missile defense just may result in actual massive loss of life and property. Simply put, to most, missile defense passes the cost-benefit-risk formula far more than other possible uses of national resources.

 

B. Hussein Obama instead claims that “tough diplomacy” will somehow convince potential threats to leave us alone. Unfortunately, anyone who would lob ICBMs at us either 1) hates us (thinking of radical Islamic countries, one in particular which has lately tested launching missiles from sea-based platforms) or 2) puts their own national interests, ahead of our own. Obviously, neither of these would seem to be susceptible to “tough diplomacy” (although direct appeasement may work). Therefore, if conciliatory give-aways in the face of direct physical threats is your preferred method of dealing with threats, B. Hussein Obama is your man.