(Video uploaded on You Tube Nov. 15, 2012 by Truthloader.)

Crossposted from American Millennium Online

American President Ronald Reagan

by Jeremy Griffith

As the title of this article suggests, the Israeli Iron Dome, an anti-missile missile system is saving lives in that country as Hamas, the Palestinian Terror organization, shoots hundreds of rockets at Israel from the West Bank and Gaza on a daily basis. The rockets create fear and uncertainly and can kill people and cause a lot of damage, but the Iron Dome is preventing many of these rockets from hitting their targets and achieving their goal.

I spoke to my brother recently who asked me to watch a You Tube Video on the topic and to comment upon it. My brother, Jason Griffith, is a Major in the Colorado National Guard and a Space Operations officer recently returned from a 9-month tour of duty in Afghanistan as the leader of a space team. He asked me this  poignant question.

“How many rockets are launched at Israel from Gaza?” he asked. I had no idea, but having been in the Holy Land once before myself, I knew it was a lot.

“Eight Hundred Seventy Seven,” he said. “And that is in just the last two weeks. How many of us would tolerate such a barrage from say Canada or Mexico?”

How many indeed?I think that most Americans would pummel the living crap out of those people attempting to assault us, but when it comes to Israel defending itself, the world urges restraint. RESTRAINT?! Please. This is an outrage. None of us would tolerate this, why should Israel? But instead of siding with Israel, who is the victim of these attacks, the Israelis are targeted by negative world opinion and labeled as the aggressors when they go into these areas and kill the leaders of Hamas responsible for the terror.

So here is my commentary on the video. Ronald Reagan was a demonstrable genius when he envisioned the so called Star Wars shield of anti-missile missile batteries when he came up against the Soviet Union in the Cold War. His greatest achievement was bluffing down the Russians and pushing off from the table at Reykjavik when Gorbachev asked him to give up Star Wars. Now the vision that Reagan had is a reality and all the idiots who called him an idiot can see for themselves the real life realization of his dream. The Patriot Missile batteries of the United States and the Iron Dome of Israel is the culmination of that dream, a shield that would block incoming ballistic missiles and keep a nation free from the threat of intercontinental ballistic missiles, especially nukes.

But we can take no comfort in the long lasting legacy of Reagan. While Israel continues to proof these great defensive weapons, President Obama plans to cut the military and what do you suppose will be among the first programs to cut? Intercontinental anti-ballistic missile systems, leaving us vulnerable to attack from without. Obama will not just stop at cutting Star Wars, he has already planned to cut back our nuclear ballistic missile capability to dangerous levels, thus making us weaker while emboldening our enemies.

This President doesn’t care about defense, which is the executive branch’s primary mission. We saw that with his reaction to Benghazi. Obama’s goal it seems is to continually steal from the taxpayer to pay off cronies and to redistribute wealth from those who have, and have worked to earn it, to those who have not, and who have no plans to ever work. Over half of Americans voted to re-elect a president so they could steal from you what they have no right to have and give it to them who have no desire to earn it. Amazing!

Well, there are consequences to elections people and we will be seeing them in the next few years as this President and his cronies in the Democratic Party, a degrading bastardization of the Party of Thomas Jefferson, drives us all over the fiscal cliff!

Take heart that at least Israel gets it and will likely be fine on their own. Necessity is the mother of invention. When we at last are threatened like Israel, perhaps we will come to our senses. I just hope that isn’t too late.

Watch this video from the US Missile Defense Agency on their prospective anti-ballistic missile capability in 2020.

The ACA falsely claims that the East Coast missile defense site, proposed by Congressional Republicans, the Institute of Defense Analyses, and the National Research Council, is unneeded and “makes little sense”. They falsely claim that

“This was a bad idea when the House proposed it this summer, and it’s a bad idea now.”

But they’re completely wrong. It was a good idea when the House proposed it this past summer, and it’s a good idea now. More to the point, it’s a NECESSARY policy. It’s necessary to protect the East Coast from future Iranian ICBMs, which Iran may have as early as 2015, according to US intel and DOD reports on Iran. Tehran has already demonstrated the capability to launch satellites into space; developing an ICBM is a logical next step. The US intelligence community and the DOD say that Iran will have an ICBM later in this decade and may have it as early as 2015 – just 3 years from now.

Concurrently, Iran, despite leftist organizations’ (such as the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ and Arms Control Wonk blog’s) pious denials, is working on nuclear weapons, as evidenced by its development of uranium deuteride, a type of a neutron initiator. A neutron initiator has NO civilian applications. Its only usage is as a trigger for nuclear weapons.

Studying possible sites for interceptors, radars, and a command center, making the Environmental Impact Statements, getting funding for such sites passed by the Congress, and building such sites will take many years, so it is necessary to start the work on an East Coast missile defense site NOW, before it’s too late – before Iran obtains an ICBM.

But for the extremely leftist, treasonous ACA, protecting America by any means – whether by missile defense or with a nuclear deterrent – is “a bad idea” and “makes little sense”. They categorically oppose (and have long opposed) any kind of missile defense for the United States (but don’t oppose Russian and Chinese programs on the same subject) and they want America to deeply and unilaterally cut its own nuclear arsenal and fleet of delivery systems while other countries (Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan) continue to rapidly build up and modernize their nuclear arsenals. The ACA’s response? The US should just hope that Russia would be nice enough to cancel its nuclear buildup and modernization in reward for America’s unilateral disarmament.

The extremely leftist ACA ridiculously cites a recent (September) National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences report as supposed evidence that an East Coast missile defense site is unneeded, but the NRC/NAS report actually proves that such a site is necessary and explicitly calls for the construction of such a site (in lieu of the 4th phase of the Obama Admin’s European Phased Adaptive Approach, i.e. the SM-3 Block 2B missile). The NRC says that an East Coast missile defense site should be located in Maine or New York state and would be far more effective and at intercepting ICBMs than any site or any missile in Europe. Here’s what the report says (p. 5-27):

“In addition to FGA and VAFB, new sites, including a northeastern United States site such as Fort Drum, New York, or northern Maine; a far western site on Shemya, Alaska; and a European site in Poland, were studied. All of these new interceptor sites were assumed to be populated with the new GMD-E high-performance interceptors, as previously described, with communication links to the BMC2 system. In this regard, the first step in a deployment evolution (using GMD-E interceptors) would be a committee-recommended site for 30 interceptors in upstate New York or northern New England. The next step in the evolution would be a phased upgrade of the current interceptors at FGA and VAFB, with the new GMD-E interceptors. In addition, an Aegis system would be used to defend Hawaii (either a ship positioned near Kauai, Hawaii, or Aegis ashore on Kauai with an additional GBX radar and THAAD battery for second shot).”

I repeat: the NRC/NAS report recognizes the need for, and explicitly CALLS for the construction of, an East Coast missile defense site.[1]

The ACA also falsely claims that:

“Instead of Sen. Ayotte’s premature proposal to study possible deployment locations for missile defense sites on the East Coast, Congress needs to take a deep breath, look at how little the nation got for over $30 billion invested on the West Coast, and ask: ‘Haven’t I seen this movie before?’”

That is also a blatant lie. The nation has realized a huge benefit for the $30 bn invested in West Coast missile defense: 30 anti-ICBM interceptors in Alaska and California capable of and ready to intercept any ICBMs from North Korea (and even a small number of Chinese ICBMs). These interceptors are accompanied by radars and command/control centers. If North Korea launches an ICBM, and if this North Korean ICBM makes it close to the US this time, America will be able to shoot it down, thanks to the GBIs on the West Coast and the $30 bn invested in West Coast missile defense.

Had the ACA had its way, the entire West Coast would’ve been completely unprotected and defenseless and North Korea would’ve been able to blackmail the US with a missile attack on the West Coast.

Think about it, folks: The ACA has been wrong everytime it has opened its mouth. It has been wrong everytime it has commented on something. It was wrong about North Korea and the West Coast, and had it had its way, the West Coast would’ve been completely defenseless. But now, ACA says “trust us, we’re be right this time, there’s no need for an East Coast missile defense site.”

But they’re wrong again, as always.

Also think about this, folks: ACA is an extremely leftist organization which seeks America’s unilateral disarmament and ideologically opposes any kind of missile defense (and has opposed it for a long time; they’ve said that the US should not deploy any kind of missile defense systems even if they prove themselves to work as intended).

They have an incentive to lie. They have an incentive to deny or understate threats to US security and to deny the effectiveness and usefulness of missile defense systems. They are not credible and cannot be trusted.

On a positive note, the Senate has adopted an amendment by Sen. John Hoeven which (and this will irk the ACA and other treasonous organizations) states that the Senate believes that the US needs to continue to maintain a nuclear triad of ICBMs, SSBNs, and strategic bombers. The amendment states:

“It is the sense of the Senate that 1) the United States should maintain a triad of strategic nuclear delivery systems; and 2) the United States is committed to modernizing the component weapons and delivery systems of that triad.”

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121129/DEFREG02/311290006/U-S-Senate-Leaves-East-Coast-Shield-8217-s-Fate-Conference-Panel?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

[1] Donald Montague [ed.], Making Sense of Ballistic Missile Defense: An Assessment of Concepts and Systems for U.S. Boost-Phase Missile Defense in Comparison to Other Alternatives, National Academies Press, Washington DC 2012, p. 5-27.

The US Government is seeking to expand its Missile Defense Shield – this time in Asia.  The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. is discussing the addition of an early warning radar in southern Japan, in addition to the current system in the Northern Japan, which would help to minimize  threats from North Korea and China’s.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that there has not been a decision made yet, ”But it’s certainly a topic of conversation because missile defense is important to both of our nations,” Dempsey said before a meeting with Gen. Shigeru Iwasaki at the Pentagon.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had said on Thursday that a launch by North Korea would violate the agreement made between the United States and North Korea. The earlier agreement had promised food and medical supplies for the starving masses as long as several conditions were met – one of which was a missile testing moratorium.

In another sternly-worded statement, Clinton said:

If Pyongyang goes forward, we will all be back in the Security Council to take further action.  And it is regrettable because, as you know, we had worked through an agreement that would have benefited the North Korean people with the provision of food aid. But in the current atmosphere, we would not be able to go forward with that, and other actions that other countries had been considering would also be on hold.

The United Nations is the sole remedy from the Obama administration. As proved by North Korea’s actions, Iran’s continued defiance of U.N. mandates and the ongoing violence in Syria, it is a failed approach that relies on a defunct, but expensive, organization.

Obama has also recently expressed his willingness to sell-out American defense interests as he told Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that Obama would have much more flexibility on missile defense once he gets re-elected. There had also been confusion over just what the Obama administration had negotiated away last January in the START treaty with Russia. While Russia said that the treaty prevented America from deploying missile defenses, American counter-parts disagreed.

President Obama’s speak softly and carry nothing policy will likely lead to both Iran and North Korea having an inter-continental ballistic missile capability and the United States having no missile defenses to protect herself. This is not simply a failure in foreign policy, but now in national defense.

This “flexibility” could apply to:

• Russian help to Iran on it’s nuclear stockpile
• Cuba and Venezuela
• Defense of Europe from an Iranian missle
• National defense secrets that the State department has reportedly been seeking to give to Russia

The Obama administration’s response to the airing of this video interchange was to simply state that that nothing is going to be accomplished in an election year. Clearly the President is far too busy golfing, fund-raising and attending his $3 lottery dinners to deal with issues like national security, foreign policy or silly things like open microphones.