Since the WMD thread went 8 pages, I'm curious as to the boards position on the next stage in our nations defense. I saw this commentary on the next generation of missle defense and found it quite interesting. I think it will be very interesting what the position of the Democratic party will be on will be on this.

Commentary: Missile defenses: Better safe than sorry
Orlando Sentinel 07/11/03
author: Peter A. Brown

If anyone ever doubted that governmental policy choices have life-and-death consequences, the war with Iraq should settle the matter.

That's why when the inevitable debate begins again over development of an anti-ballistic-missile system, let's remember the track records of those who
instinctively oppose new weaponry as wasteful.

If Iraq isn't lesson enough, the potential threat from North Korea should give pause to those who argue that missile defenses aren't needed because the real
threat to national security is just from terrorists.

Remember that the next time you hear the usual suspects complain about the "military-industrial complex" taking us down the wrong road.

The United States didn't quickly defeat Iraq with a minimum loss of life because it has the world's largest armed forces.

It prevailed because of the money U.S. taxpayers invested in military technology, often after bitter, usually partisan, battles about the alleged redundancy of
weapons systems, and their lower relative priority for government funds.

Regardless of whether Dwight Eisenhower was correct a half-century ago to worry about the ability of the Pentagon and its contractors to hijack U.S.
foreign policy when he coined the "military-industrial complex" phrase, today the issue is clear.

America's unmatched ability to fight at night, use computer-guided weapons with sophisticated targeting and meld communications and military technology
define the military state of the art.

Thank God that the United States has that capability and is not a nation with delusions of dominating the world.

But it's critical in the future that we don't just rest on our laurels.

Keep that in mind when some politician, as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, runs for Congress or the presidency by criticizing the Pentagon
budget as bloated, and suggests the nation would be better off spending the money on more bureaucrats or social programs.

Voters in democratic societies, and not just the United States, are legendary for their short memories when the shooting ends. It is human nature to assume
that every conflict is the last one, and to want government to put a higher priority on domestic needs.

Actually, the English take the cake in that category. They threw Winston Churchill from office at the end of World War II and proceeded to watch their
nation in the ensuing years become a second-rate power.

Let's hope they aren't stupid enough to do the same to Tony Blair in the aftermath of the Iraqi conflict.

Here at home, it wasn't too long ago that Pentagon critics -- generally, but not always, Democrats from Northern states where Americans are voting with
their moving vans -- argued that the notion that the United States should be prepared to fight two wars at the same time was an anachronism

In the 21st century, they argued, such a well-funded military was unnecessary because the threat would be from terrorists, not nation-states, and the way
to stop them was to eliminate the "root cause" of their unhappiness by throwing money at their problems.

Terrorists are a big problem, but not the only one. Defending ourselves against them isn't as expensive as preparing for wars with other countries. But just
because it is cheaper to believe that terrorists are the greatest threat doesn't necessarily make it so.

The two-war requirement is not outdated, as the continued uncertainty about North Korea shows. Remember that amid the postwar euphoria.

In fact, North Korea's nuclear-weapons program is the best, but not the only, reason why the next political battle over a weapons system will see history
repeating itself.

The Bush administration wants to go full-speed ahead with development of an anti-missile-defense system.

The issue has been a political hot potato for two decades since President Reagan first backed the idea.

Pentagon critics have derided it as unworkable and unnecessary.

The opponents first argued that, with the demise of the Soviet Union, there are no nations with nuclear warheads and the delivery system to threaten the
United States. They have also claimed the technology is not available to shoot down incoming missiles.

But the record of U.S. technology in the Iraq war in shooting down shorter-range missiles, and the success of U.S. efforts to develop weaponry generally,
is ample evidence the project deserves its chance to become the next gadget that allows us to sleep better at night.