Liberals hate the American people

Yeah, that might get a rise out of some people.  But I'm not just writing it for effect.  I want to produce an argument in favor of it.

The argument boils down to the altogether obvious fact that the Liberals refuse to defend the people in this country.  It doesn't matter what the defense entails, if it is a defense, the Liberals are against any meaningful defense of this country and its people.  I don't know how else to describe it except as hatred.

I will cite one example and let the argument end there, even though it can be continued with other examples.

Let's take the "Star Wars" missile defense as the example.  The Liberal line is that there's no defense against ICBMs.  Sorry, but that is wrong.  I've given it some thought and it's wrong.  ICBMs can be defended against.  It's just that the Liberals don't want to do it.

There are several layers of defense against missiles.  These are deployed defense systems now in operation.  Rather than go into these in depth, let me just mention those that I know about-

1. The Airborne Laser, which can shoot down missiles in their boost phase
2. The THAAD system--- these are intended for regional defense as far as I can tell
3. The Patriot missile defense system--- mostly battlefield and close in defense
4. The anti ballistic missile missiles deployed in Alaska and those that were planned for Poland v ICBMs
5. The Phalanx systems adapted from defense of ships into the Israeli Iron Dome missile defense

If there's anything I would do differently on just these systems is to deploy them aggressively.  In addition, an aggressive civil defense system in which people could find shelter quickly if an attack is imminent.

Airborne lasers could work against short range missiles lobbed in from submarines.  A fleet of these could discourage an close approach to American shores for a sneak attack.  Submarines could track enemy subs before they get this far.  Satellites can detect when they leave home port.

There's no reason for any vulnerability to this kind of attack.  The only exception to this would be from a superpower.  But even that could be defended against if the will to do it existed.  Why?

I think a terminal defense system could be deployed to defend against the final approach of a warhead and to destroy it as an effective weapon.  In other words, a fail safe system that would render an attack totally ineffective.

Nuclear weapons are not the same as conventional explosives in more ways than the obvious one.  If you smash an object hard enough against it, it could render it harmless.  That's because a nuclear weapon must have a condition inside the warhead that is favorable for a nuclear explosion.  If anything damages the integrity of those conditions, it can't explode.

If the Liberals would only deploy these defenses aggressively, I would change my mind about them.  But they won't.  Playing around with these defense systems isn't going to cut it.  They have to deployed aggressively.

It isn't just this example, but a general pattern of refusal to defend the country.  How else can it be but that they hate their own country?