*=recently updated

Matthew Hoy currently works as a metro page designer at the San Diego Union-Tribune.

The opinions presented here do not represent those of the Union-Tribune and are solely those of the author.

If you have any opinions or comments, please e-mail the author at: hoystory -at- cox -dot- net.

Dec. 7, 2001
Christian Coalition Challenged
Hoystory interviews al Qaeda
Fisking Fritz
Politicizing Prescription Drugs

<< current

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

A note on the Amazon ads: I've chosen to display current events titles in the Amazon box. Unfortunately, Amazon appears to promote a disproportionate number of angry-left books. I have no power over it at this time. Rest assured, I'm still a conservative.

Wednesday, October 27, 2004
California is loony-toon land: California's saner, senior senator, Dianne Feinstein, demonstrates that you can be to the right of Barbara Boxer and still be a nut. In a letter to The Wall Street Journal, Feinstein takes the paper's editors to task for supporting research into a bunker-busting nuke. [Link requires a subscription, but I'll be quoting the entire letter.]

Your Oct. 20 editorial "Bunker Busting Myths" is badly mistaken. As the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reports, the administration's own long-term budget plans, which include $485 million for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (bunker buster) between 2005 and 2009, "cast doubt" on the contention that the study of new nuclear weapons is, in fact, only a study.

And Amb. Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, stated earlier this year that the goal is to be "able to design, develop, and begin production of a new warhead within three to four years of a decision to enter engineering development."

Let me first say that I support research into any weapon that will help deter rogue nations from thinking they're safe to launch attacks on the U.S. simply because they have nuclear weapons.

Feinstein believes that we're not just "studying" a bunker buster bomb because an administration official says that the goal is being able to "design, develop and begin production" of such a weapon within three to four years after Congress votes for it and the President approves it. At this stage, it is just a study. Yes, it's a study that sets the groundwork for the future, but just because we study something doesn't mean we're going to do anything about it (see global warming).

At a time when one of the most profound threats facing our nation is that terrorists will get hold of nuclear weapons, the United States must do everything it can to make nuclear weapons less available and their use less legitimate. The administration, however, is leading the U.S. down a dangerous path with its pursuit of new nuclear weapons such as the bunker buster.

Ah, yes. If we get rid of our nuclear weapons -- or at least stop making new ones -- then terrorists won't seek them out to use against us. Nuclear weapons then being "illegitmate." We should get rid of all jumbo jets too, because then terrorists won't use them to ram buildings and kill thousands of Americans. If we have a weapon or technology, then it is therefore "legitimate" for terrorists to use it against us.

This is the epitome of Sept. 10 thinking. Does Feinstein really believe that if we destroyed all of our nuclear weapons that Kim Jong Il would give up his. What kind of fantasyland is Feinstein living in?

If we add new nuclear weapons to our stockpiles we would be legitimizing the pursuit of new nuclear weapons by other nations. This would not only undermine our nonproliferation policy, but would also send a message to the other countries -- some of which may wish to do us harm -- that it is okay to develop these treacherous weapons.

No, it sends exactly the opposite message. The message is, if you think you're safe developing nukes deep beneath some mountain to transfer to terrorists or to use against the United States, you're wrong, because we'll bore down and blow it up. As P.J. O'Rourke has aptly said: "It's a mess with a message -- don't mess with us."

We've had a nonproliferation policy for decades -- and that stopped Pakistan and India how exactly? We haven't tested a nuke in decades (we run supercomputer simulations), and that did what exactly to stop France from detonating a nuke?

Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi understands the world a whole lot better than the senior senator from California. He gave up his nuclear weapons program because he saw what Saddam Hussein got and he didn't want any of it.

Does Feinstein seriously believe that other countries will give up their nuclear programs if we destroy ours? Or that they will start developing nuclear weapons just because America has them?

Does Feinstein believe that that juvenile excuse is going to work when a country is confronted by the United States and the rest of the international community? It's like a 5-year-old whining: "The U.S. has nukes, so I want them too." It's not going to fly.

The bottom line is that we will make our nation, and our allies less secure, not more, if the U.S. opens the door to the development, testing, and deployment of new tactical nuclear weapons.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.)

How exactly are we less secure if we have the capability to destroy heavily fortified targets around the world?

Safety through weakness has never worked. You'd think that the Democrat Party would have learned that after Ronald Reagan's strength -- not weakness -- brought about the end of the Cold War. Or that it was President George W. Bush's strength -- not weakness -- that persuaded the Libyan dictator to give up his WMDs.

This is another example of why the Democrat Party cannot be trusted with this nation's security. They think that if we somehow appear less threatening, then no one will want to attack us -- when the opposite is true. September 11, 2001, taught some of us that weakness emboldens terrorists, it doesn't pacify them.

Unfortunately, Sen. Feinstein has learned nothing during the past three years and America is worse off because of it.

1:58 AM

Nice post. Feinstein (and Boxer for that matter) have adopted the mantra that one single "super power" is less safe than two. It is the same calling card found ensconced within the European Union. Unfortunately, they base their fears on their own weaknesses.

Somehow, however, I think Teddy Roosevelt would understand the logic of a Bunker Buster Nuke.
I agree. There's a more straightforward analogy to her idiocy than the "jumbo jet" one you used: the possession and use of firearms by police legitimizes the possession and use of firearms by criminals, so the police should be disarmed.
Post a Comment

Powered by Blogger Pro™