June 24, 2006

Democrats Supporting The Doctrine Of Pre-Emption?

It's not unusual that I find myself disagreeing with a democrat. But this time it's really ironic.

Former Vice President Walter Mondale says he supports a pre-emptive U.S. strike against a North Korean missile that is raising nuclear fears around the globe.

. . .

Mondale said on WCCO-AM Friday that the United States should tell North Korea "defuel that missile. It has three boosters. Dismantle it and put it back in the sheds. Because if you're getting ready to fire this, we'll take it out."

. . .

Mondale and other former top Democrats are convinced apparently that action is the key to ending the standoff.

"This is such a legitimate thing for the United States to do," Mondale said. "The nature of the threat is so serious that I think we should knock it out right there if they won't stop."

Didn't that guy die? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he's still alive, but I though I'd heard that he died a while back.

I'm against shooting down the missile. Firing a test missile, assuming they aim it at international waters, is provocative as Condoleezza Rice said. But it is not an act of war. Shooting a test missile down is an act of war. We don't need to escalate this latest confrontation with North Korea into a hot war.

I'm not sure whether Mondale thinks we can shoot the missile out of the sky or whether he thinks we should hit it before it launches. In the audio, he said that

. . . one missile like the one that took out Zarqawi could take out this [the North Korean] missile.
I'll cut the old man some slack, but he seems to have forgotten that we used bombs to kill Zarqawi, not missiles.

Now if we were to blow up the test missile on the ground, we would ignite a shit storm of unimaginable proportions. North Korea would be able to claim justification for some kind of retaliation, and the world might start calling us the rogue state. I would not be surprised if the UN Security Council met to discuss sanctions against the US.

If we were to shoot the missile out of the sky, we'd run the risk that our anti-missile missile might miss. That would be worse than doing nothing. Our anti-missile technology is far from perfect. The task has often been described as "hitting a bullet with a bullet." If we were to try for the Korean missile, we could not afford to miss. And I don't care for the odds.

However, if we let the North Koreans shoot their wad, we can monitor its performance much better than even they can. We'll gain important intelligence on their capabilities, both in missile technology and in electronic missile tracking. (Since they'll be watching the missile, we'll be able to watch their radars.) Diplomatically, we can use their "provocative act" against them if and when we need international support for action in the future.

I say, complain about it, but if they're determined to test their missile, don't stop them.

h/t to Larry at Beth's.

Posted by: annika at 08:48 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 3 kb.

1 You're right, Annika. I never thought that the ramifications of stopping their missile would be that bad. I'm confident that our naval missile defense systems would be successful in destroying the enemy missile, but not so much with our ground based defenses in Alaska.

Posted by: reagan80 at June 24, 2006 10:31 AM (qNzwM)

2 the "world" already considers us the rouge state.... Still a missle is too showy. better it blow-up on the ground on its own. Of course if anything goes wrong with this test we will be blamed whether or not we actually do anything. Then there is the question of what to do if they fire a missle at someone, or at us.

Posted by: Zendo Deb at June 25, 2006 04:00 AM (+gqOq)

3 Lest one has spent some time around the oriental mind... allow me to lay out the calculus of the situation. We're not going to do anything because this administration understands the situation, unlike the Carterite fucktards so freely giving advice. Who is threatened? The Japs. When they get scared enough, they'll develop a nuclear capability. Who will this threaten? The Red Chinese who clearly don't want this outcome. What will the reds do? Yank that little nehru jacket wearing motherfucker's chain. In the oriental world there is hidden meaning in all action, thus kabuki. What is the hidden meaning in the NORKs dragging out their new toy and playing with it? They want to get one-on-one with the US in a meaningless negotiation ploy so they can extort money on the world stage like they've done with previous demoncrat administrations. Remember, they're a country without paved roads.

Posted by: Casca at June 25, 2006 07:54 AM (2gORp)

4 I'd be more afraid if I lived in Canada or Mexico given the state of NK missile guidance technology.

Posted by: Col Steve at June 27, 2006 09:49 AM (eEgft)

5 I just realized how many decades have passed. When Mondale first reached national prominence, staying at a Holiday Inn was a bad thing (although he changed his tune when Carter tapped in in '76). Now, people can solve world crises because they "stayed at a Holiday Inn last night."

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at June 27, 2006 11:03 PM (YKFRM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
19kb generated in CPU 0.04, elapsed 0.1316 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.1012 seconds, 166 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.