.jpeg)
Throughout his career, Joe Biden has opposed U.S. missile defence, and now that he is president, he could trade our defences in a deal with the Russians, Iranians or Chinese.
That would be a dangerous mistake. The
critical role of missile defence in national security strategy calls for a
commitment to strengthen and expand these capabilities rather than considering
them as bargaining chips in diplomatic negotiations at any time.
Even President Barack Obama, who was
sympathetic to the idealist view of disarmament, and was caught on a hot mic
talking to President Dmitry Medvedev suggesting he would negotiate on missile
defence after the U.S. election, ultimately chose to not trade away missile
defense with the Russians. And now the U.S. is firmly locked in a rivalry with
not just one nuclear superpower, but two, and still contending with a nuclear
rogue state.
Senator Joe Biden's and President
Biden's historical positions on missile defence align more closely with
political considerations than with safeguarding the American public. His
political history shows that Biden has opposed missile defence initiatives,
including the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which most recently has
proven to enhance national security and protect American citizens including its
allies from missile threats.
Biden's political history of opposition
to missile defence, as outlined by his voting records and in numerous articles,
has been driven by political motives rather than a genuine concern for national
security or the citizens of the United States who elected him over the years.
Biden's opposition to President
Reagan's SDI initiative and subsequent resistance to missile defence efforts
under subsequent administrations, including President George W. Bush's plans to
deploy and improve homeland missile defence, are proof of instances where
political considerations influenced his stance.
The most vocal critic of the Reagan
Doctrine for an American Strategic Defense Initiative and a strong voice for
putting it on the bargaining table was Sen. Joe Biden. who said, “The president’s
continued adherence to [SDI] constitutes one of the most reckless and
irresponsible acts in the history of modern statecraft.”
The Biden and Democrats theory that
missile defences might prompt an arms race between the United States and
nuclear powers by degrading the certainty of “mutual vulnerability” has always
been dubious. But after so many years of observing the impact of missile
defences, we have mounting evidence that it is compatible with mutual offensive
arms reductions. Missile defense is de-escalatory, has a deterrent effect, and
most important, saves lives.
The missile defence system that Bush
relied on in 2006, and which today provides protection for the American
homeland, deployed forces, allies and friends, is based on the technology
developed by the SDI program that Biden continually opposed. Had Biden had his
way in the 1980s and the early 2000s, the U.S. would be vulnerable and exposed
to adversaries’ missiles across the globe.
As far back as 1988 Joe Biden has shown
Americans that he truly is unfit for office, in my view. Biden and the
Democrats have always put their political standing for keeping power and
getting reelected ahead of their position for the American people and its
country, as history continues to show.
The Democrat's Opposition to the
Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI):
Opposition to SDI: The opposition to
SDI primarily came from Democrats, including scientists and nuclear weapons
experts. The opposition is framed as more politically motivated than based on
technical or military concerns.
Political Context: The Democrats'
opposition to SDI stemmed from broader political considerations. Democrats were
already on the wrong side of economic policy, particularly about Reaganomics,
and their opposition to SDI further complicated their political position.
Policy Stakes: SDI is portrayed as a
radical departure from the policy of mutually assured destruction (MAD),
offering a morally and practically superior alternative. However, the Democrats
faced a political dilemma in responding to SDI, as endorsing it would mean
ceding political ground to Reagan. as opposed to the safety of Americans.
Political Consequences: The success or
failure of SDI would have significant political ramifications for the
Democrats. If SDI succeeded, Democrats would face the challenge of admitting
their opposition was wrong or persisting in their stance, which would become
increasingly untenable.
Impact on Democrats: The political
fortunes of the Democrats would be tied to the success or failure of SDI, with
its success potentially detrimental to their political standing.
Overall, SDI was a politically charged
issue that posed challenges for the Democrats, impacting both their policy
positions and electoral prospects.
FACTS:
Technological Feasibility: Experts
agree that the concept of basing ballistic missile interceptors in space is feasible.
Advances in sensors, computing power, and networking have made the development
of such a system more practical and potentially more effective than in previous
decades.
Strategic Advantages: Space-based
interceptors offer significant strategic advantages, particularly in engaging
threats during the boost phase of missile flight. Intercepting missiles at this
stage provides opportunities to pre-empt the deployment of countermeasures and
ensures a higher likelihood of hitting all warheads, potentially over enemy
territory.
Better Coverage and Positioning:
Space-based interceptors would provide better coverage compared to ground-based
systems, as they could defend against missile launches from virtually any
location on Earth. Additionally, their orbital velocity offers positional
advantages, reducing the distance to intercept and allowing multiple shots at
incoming threats.
Dual Functionality: In addition to
missile defence, space-based interceptors could potentially be used to target
adversaries' satellites, countering threats to U.S. space systems and providing
a defensive capability against anti-satellite weapons.
Deterrence: The development and
deployment of space-based interceptors could serve as a deterrent against
potential adversaries, signalling U.S. capabilities and resolve to protect
against missile threats.
Sources:
https://www.csmonitor.com/1986/0609/estar.html
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Strategic-Defense-Initiative
https://www.britannica.com/topic/arms-control
http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal85-1147419
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6351380207112
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your thoughts, comments and opinions, will be in touch. Peter Clarke