A moment for something different

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jH0YjpygDi5_ckf0EOh5tBGbOnMAD9AR5R581

I think this is my next blog post

Lately in politics rhetoric has gotten so out of control that I mostly abstain from discussing it, but every once in awhile something comes up that gets me so irritated that I just need to let off a little steam. One of those topics, though it may seem odd, is missile defense. In his last year in office, President Bush began construction of 10 interceptor missiles place in Poland for the purpose of defending Europe from Iran should it launch intercontinental ballistic missiles. In response, Russia started building short range missiles in Kaliningrad to respond it what it interpreted as the United States trying to gain a strategic advantage should the need to attack Russia ever appear. In addition, they bought the lease out on an American airbase that is key in getting supplies to Afghanistan.

This week President Obama announced that this plan is being scrapped in favor of a missile-defense plan relying on a network of sensors and interceptor missiles based at sea, on land and in the air that are designed to destroy medium range missiles. Obama says that adapts to the most pressing threat from Iran to U.S. troops and allies in Europe, potential attacks by short- and medium-range missiles.

In response South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham released the following statement:

"This is going to be seen as a capitulation to the Russians, who had no real basis to object to what we were doing. And at the end of the day you empowered the Russians, you made Iran happy and you made the people in Eastern Europe wonder who we are as Americans."

Now why does this tick me off? Well to kick off a two part answer, the old system that was to be put in place, and let me state this clearly so as not to cause confusion, DOES NOT WORK. It has in truth never worked, almost every test to date has failed to actually intercept a ballistic missile. For part two, which gets even better, is the fact that Iran does not possess and is nowhere near creating the type of ICBM that the old system was designed to shoot down.

The benefit of the current system is that it actually works, I know this because the U.S. Navy has been using it for years. If you don't believe me you can look it up, its called A.B.M.D. or Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. Using this technology, any U.S. or allied ship equipped with this system can use the radar and targeting capabilities of any other ship, essentially creating one unified defense platform. In a test last year, a Japanese destroyed intercepted a short range missile that an American destroyer 5 miles away had targeted.

Now setting that whole issue aside, lets take a second look at that statement. What Lindsey fails to realize is that what he considers capitulation has another word used to describe it, diplomacy. In diplomacy, as I understand it, two sides often agree to compromise. He's right about empowering the Russians however, as they are currently empowered. So much so that they empowered themselves to disassemble a missile battery that was pointing right at Europe (which we could not have shot down using the old system). Perhaps when Eastern Europe asks who we are as Americans, we can tell them were the people who got that taken apart. I'm not sure why Iran would be happy about this, as the new system could actually stop a missile should they make the fateful decision to fire one.

So in short, this man would rather keep an ineffective defense against a threat that doesn't exist, rather than switch to a functional system that can protect against threats we are facing right now just so he can try and score points with an uniformed public. Nice job man.