This is another example of how the government continually gets it wrong.
Back in the sixties, a missile defense system was proposed and developed. It was finally operational in the seventies, but not for long. Actually, it was only for a day.
Some people have this fatalistic conception of nuclear weapons. If any ever go off, it will be the end of the world. But how deeply was this proposition ever studied? I would propose that if a small nuke went off in Houston, it would be really bad, but not as bad as people think. It would not be the end of the world. But that is what most people have been led to believe.
When I say small nuke, I mean like a suitcase nuke. It so happens that an anti missile missile design of the sixties and seventies would use a really small yield nuclear device to destroy an incoming nuclear warhead. It also so happens that the missile that does this job would not have to be all that big. This means several things: 1) you don't need to spend a lot of money on it and 2) it can be mobile and be placed anywhere you want it 3) it is fast 4) an enemy could not stop it nor defend against it 5) it would be almost 100% effective, in my estimation. So, why cancel it?
It must have been canceled because of an disinformation blitz that convinced the public of how "dangerous" it was. Naturally, because it used nuclear explosions, it must be horribly dangerous. It may have been the same type of scare campaign that caused the nuclear power industry to go into hibernation, if not a coma in this country. Fears were played up so greatly that people lost all sense of rationality on the subject of radioactivity and nuclear power. Consequently, we don't have all the benefits that we may have had if we had kept our missile defense. Moreover, the missile defense should have been expanded. Instead, it was bargained away first by the Nixon administration, then canceled altogether. How foolish can you get?
Now the big fear is of North Korea and Iran getting nuclear weapons. This fear would not exist if we had kept our missile defense. Not only that, but if we had expanded it, there would be little incentive for these countries to develop such weapons. It would be pointless because they would have virtually no chance of hitting their targets. The retaliation would destroy them.
I think people, even dangerous criminals, respond to incentives. If the incentive is to not attack because it is too dangerous, even a criminal will think twice. On the other hand, if you expose yourself to attack, a criminal may find it irresistible to attack. When asked about why they attacked us at Pearl Harbor in 1941, the former Imperial Japanese officials said they thought we would not fight. That should have been enough of a lesson to learn so that mistake would not be repeated again. If we look at the events of 9/11/2001, evidently somebody forgot their lessons. We were attacked then because we showed weakness, not because we showed strength.
Need I say what the Obama Administration did? Instead of improving our missile defense, Obama weakened it. There can be little doubt that the thinking that animates this administration and many on the left is that peace will come if we make ourselves weak. If history is any guide, the opposite will occur. The next time we are attacked, it may well be with nuclear weapons. By that time, it will be too late to correct the mistakes.
