OUR EVIL UMPIRES STRIKE OUT AGAIN
The latest smashing good news in Missile Defense from Closing Velocity:
While it keeps racking up successful intercepts like clockwork, missile defense will never work in the real world, critics crow, therefore we should scrap it ASAP.
That all changes today.
With a bombshell article in Aviation Week, the stool is kicked out from under this perennial argument against missile defense. AW’s Amy Butler reveals stunning new information about a recent missile defense test and just how operationally realistic it was.
By the way, the author notes in his sidebar that Missle Defense has a public approval rating of 87%, up there with Santa Claus and Mom’s apple pie.
Despite that, earlier this year the administration announced plans to cut the program by 15%. Here’s what I wrote at the time; “Reagan in Reverse“:
While President Reagan saw SDI as a way to enable us to safely ban nuclear weapons, Obama wants to ban both nuclear weapons AND the SDI program.
Obama keeps falsely calling SDI “unproven”. And he’s bought into the Russian’s terms: a shield is a “weapon”, “aimed” at Russia. Is a bulllet-proof vest a weapon? Obama thinks weapons in the hands of rogue nations make us unsafe–but he thinks America IS a rogue nation.
Even when Reagan announced SDI, critics said he was “weaponizing space”. Obama seems to have adopted this attitude. In fact, Reagan was DE-weaponizing space. Reagan was not able to reach zero–but by defeating the Soviets, he made drastic reductions possible. …
Obama is proposing cuts–real cuts–in defense spending. SDI is being cut 15% while $6 Billion is headed to pay ObamaCorps “volunteers”. Nevermind that by definition, if they’re being paid, they’re not volunteers.
Didn’t Obama Democrats say “our army is broken” and “stretched to the breaking point”? And now they’re slashing it? …
Don’t be fooled: Reagan and Obama both wanted an end to nukes. But Ronald Reagan believed in “Peace Through Strength”, while Obama believes in “Strength through Peace”.
That is, Obama believes America is strongest when we are pacifist and weak, when in fact, that has always invited war. That is the lesson of the Peace Fever of the Thirties.
As Mike noted below, liberals scoffed at the word “evil” when Reagan used it against gulag administrators, but now embrace it to describe American voters. Why, it’s almost as if they’re questioning someone’s patriotism!
They are wrong now, but they were also wrong at the time to scoff at the “Evil Empire” language Reagan used. The State Department hated it so much, they kept removing it from the speech–and Reagan kept on penciling it right back in.
We needed to hear it. We needed the moral clarity. Our children needed to hear it. Liberals needed to hear it. Our allies needed to hear it. Wavering Third World governments needed to hear it. Dissidents and prisoners needed to hear it. And most of all the Soviets themselves needed to hear it. They recognized themselves in the indictment. And even those who didn’t at least knew that they weren’t going to put anything past Reagan. He had their number.
The cartoon of Reagan as a warmonger is perfectly upside-down. He was an anti-nuker in 1945! He said he would have gladly marched in the Freeze Movement, but he knew that it would give the lying, cheating, stealing, occupying Communists a permanent and decisive advantage, thus making disarmament LESS likely and making war MORE likely.
A “warmonger”? By calling “evil” evil, Ronald Reagan was able to remove more nuclear weapons from the face of the earth than any other person who has ever lived. But he did it from a position of strength and moral clarity, not from self-imposed weakness inside a moral fog.
And therein lies all the difference in the world between President Reagan and President Reagan-in-Reverse.