Jimmy Carter redoux. I remember reading about F15 pilots having to go to Radio Shack to buy common electronic components for their planes.

But then the North Koreans mean no harm, do they?

Bill:

Obama is, no surprise, a classic radical leftist who reflexively distrusts American power and our nuclear arsenal. He, like the left, espouses a world view that has nuclear disarmament as the end-game.

It's childish and dangerous.

Look for Obama to start knocking at Israel's nuclear program, demanding transparency, yadda-yadda. After all, that's what the Iranians are demanding.

Look at everything Obama has spent money on and now he wants to spend our money on a huge new health care entitlement. There are people that think health care is a right endowed to us by the constitution.

But the defense of our country is not a right but a duty Obama and his supporters seem to overlook. See how eager he is to apologize around the world for all our perceived sins.

But like our last two Democrat presidents, Obama looks at the defense budget as a necessary evil that diverts money from his precious social programs.

And everyone knew it during the campaign but too many people either agreed with him or were more than happy to ignore it.

Johnny:

I have some friends who are pretty high up in Republican circles and they are beginning to sense that Obama's radical policies are forming a solid anti-Democrat bloc in America that will sweep Republicans back into the White House and Congress in the next election cycle.

Bill Clinton understood that the Dems must be centrist to win elections.

Obama, as a true leftist believer, is incapable of such flexibility and clarity.

Let's just hope Republicans don't go stupid and blow it with a train wreck candidate.

Robert - I think this anti-Obama block is being formed outside the Republican Party - will they be smart enough to know how to harness it?

And if they do harness it will we go back to a John Boehner Congress? I don't think of him as much of an agent of change.

My post deterrence addresses the irrational thinking of the "progressives" on nuclear strategy.

I wish I had carried my camera...

While going to the supermarket on a car above the Obama 2008 sticker I see their vanity plate: FRELODER

Off Topic: Dear Robert and anyone else on this website who lives in California: I hope and pray you are safe from the NEW wildfires.

Dear Robert,

Just a few quick thoughts about the "obamanable"
utterly disgusting exchange of one mass murderer for his 270 victims: first off, we mustn't forget that the number of victims goes well beyond the dreadful body count and includes parents,spouses, siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles, friends, acquaintances ... of the murder victims. Our Sages teach that to save one life is equivalent to saving an entire world. How many thousands of worlds were destroyed by this one murderer who happens to be, the claim is made, sick with cancer? Whether or not he is, frankly, is irrelevant although I'd be interested in knowing if his diagnosis can be or was independently confirmed, and I do not mean by the World Health Organization! Who among us really believes this story of "compassionate concern" by the UK Prime Minister? So what's the real story, Mr. Prime Minister? I'm sure you'd be welcome to offer an explanation on the "Savage Nation" radio show, but you're a busy man. I understand. Meanwhile, Mr. Churchill, the sun has indeed set on the British Empire where the arithmetic of human affairs now posits that 1 mass murderer + or - cancer > 270 victims + hundreds of people who knew and loved them.

My God, what a world this!

Alan D. Busch
www.authorsden.com/alandbusch1

Unfortunately there's no evidence that missile defense really works. Almost every scheme that has been floated until now has aimed at midcourse interception which would be unsuccessful pretty much based on the laws of physics. Plus, several studies have shown that it is much easier for the opposition to ramp up the offense than for the defense to defend itself. Plus it's extremely easy for the opposition to thwart the defense with low-cost decoys like chaff and jammers.

There's nothing wrong in funding missile defense, but to do so when it's not going to really work would be a waste of funding.

For a very comprehensive analysis of the proposed system and its drawbacks see:
http://www.thebulletin.org/files/064002009.pdf

Seems like my previous comment did not make it through. Missile defense has several technical problems which need to be resolved before it can be supported. Some of these are very severe. Here is an excellent article on the drawbacks:
http://www.thebulletin.org/files/064002009.pdf

The problem with missile defense is that it has never been proven to actually work. Simply speaking, any primitive adversary can easily defeat the most sophsiticated defense by the use of chaff, aluminum foils and cheap decoys. From a scientific standpoint the technology is still very much in question. Missile defense should be funded, but only if it stands a chance of working.