How Democrats left America naked before North Korea’s nukes

I greatly respect Marc Thiessen, and in my career had several occasions to work with him. I admire his ability to turn facts into phrases and words that catch the public’s attention.

However, in examining the facts, and with a portion of my career associated with missile defense and strategic nuclear defense, I am compelled to clarify and point out a few things. The issues and facts are much more complex than those who oversimplify national missile defense as a Republicans vs Democrats political issue.

First, missile defense programs research, defense, and acquisition programs have enjoyed relatively robust funding (within the defense budget) for decades, regardless of political party in power with Congress and who was President.

See https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/FY17_histfunds.pdf

The $7.9 billion dollars appropriated in FY2010 (under President Obama) surpasses four of the eight years of the Bush presidency.

Recall that the Pentagon’s overall budgets were constrained by various sequestrations and Budget Control Acts, during times when our military’s warfighters rightfully needed appropriate investments in capabilities to win on the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, and protect the lives and limbs of our soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen. For example, where should the money come from to improve our counter-IED capabilities, and improve the care for our wounded warriors?

So, during times when the intelligence community was stating that it would be years before North Korea could threaten the United States with nuclear-tipped ICBMs, how many ground based interceptors would you have the taxpayers buy? None? A dozen? Three dozen? Four dozen? How many Ground Based Interceptor missiles do we need, and when, and how fast can new interceptor mmissiles be procured? Can we surge our production capability while retaining reliability? Can we make defensive missiles faster than North Korea can make more ICBMs?

Regarding the scrapping of missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic: how much would those installations contribute to our national capabilities to defend U.S. soil from North Korean missile threats? Or would those European missile defense capabilities be needed more to defend Poland (and the EU) from Russia, with perhaps a future capability to defend the United States from Iran if and when they have ICBMs? Can our Aegis/SM-3 capabilities adequately offset the lack of ground-based stationing of U.S. missile defenses in eastern Europe? Can and should Europe have their own ground-based missile defense capabilities? And by the way, how does this affect Russia's continued compliance with the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, signed in 2002 by then-President Bush?

I do agree with Marc’s conclusion and recommendation: in light of North Korea’s recently demonstrated capabilities, we should increase our nation’s investments in our national missile defense programs.

Russian nonsense, the place at risk, if North Korea really had nukes would be Vladivostok in Russia less than 100 miles from that crater supposedly left by the last test. Not a bit of radiation though.
Lucky for the Russians Steven Segal, ex Navy Seal, Special Forces Cook, lives there with his mother. If anyone can stop them it's him

But now the GOP pretty much has all the power to make things right. NK won't be stopped with sanctions, missile defense, pressure, verbal threats, etc... That just motivates them more. They are on their path to becoming a nuclear nation and they know the US doesn't have the stomach for another Korean War. This is why it doesn't matter what other administrations have done. The only peaceful solution with NK is slowing down their progress but accepting them as a nuclear power. Nevertheless, the only realistic solution for a non-nuclear NK is exactly what Pres Trump suggested: "fire and fury like the world has never seen". In that I agree with him. They will not stop any other way cause it's do or die for them.