“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Thursday, April 26, 2007

The death cult of Islam with nuclear missiles. Worth the risk?

If you have not done so, please read the previous post and watch the video, and then think of AQ in charge of Pakistan and the thought of what happens to the nuclear missiles in Pakistan. Forget what they are saying about Iran. That is a smoke screen. The real threat is Pakistan. They just cannot say the words. If Musharraf is killed and the Islamists are in control... The West needs a defence system that works

The Telegraph
By Condoleezza Rice, US Secretary of State, and Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense

Rice seeks to ease Moscow fears on missile system
Sixteen years after the end of the Cold War, the transatlantic community and Russia are not adversaries. Indeed, on a number of issues, we are partners.

We both face a number of common challenges, among the most threatening is the possibility that a dangerous state will use ballistic missiles, tipped with nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction, to hold our societies hostage – or worse.

Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State
Make no mistake: This is a real challenge. Despite our best efforts, including notable successes in Libya and breaking up the A.Q. Khan network, weapons of mass destruction and missile capabilities continue to proliferate.

We sincerely hope that the diplomatic efforts now under way will succeed in addressing the challenges we face from states like North Korea and Iran. We have made some progress with Pyongyang, and though Teheran still defies the international community, there are signs that it is feeling the diplomatic pressure.

However, we cannot guarantee success, and governments have a responsibility to defend their people.

The logic of Cold War "Mutual Assured Destruction" does not make sense in today’s strategic environment. Today, we seek security based on more than the grim premise that we can destroy those who seek to destroy us.

We need to be clear that the missile threat from Iran is real and growing, and it is a threat not just to the United States, but to Europe and Russia as well.

Looking a few years ahead, other such missile threats will likely emerge as well. It is with these new realities in mind that we are developing and deploying modest missile defenses.

Our goal is to field systems capable of protecting not only the United States and our forces, but also friends and allies like those in the transatlantic community. We speak of the transatlantic community because we have learned that our security is not divisible; that if our allies are not secure, America is not secure. America cannot "go it alone."

To ensure our common security, we need defenses in place well before a threat fully emerges. Accordingly, we have approached some of our allies with the idea of deploying limited missile defense capabilities: 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar installation in the Czech Republic.

While the United States can defend its own territory without these additional capabilities, fielding them would enable us to extend coverage to most of Europe while providing improved protection at home.

Our strategy is to strengthen our ability to detect, defend against, and thus deter a missile attack.

Missile defenses are part of contemporary deterrence and promote stability, as we saw last summer, when we activated our system for the first time in response to North Korean missile launch preparations. In that case, our missile defense system allowed our national leadership to consider a wider, more flexible range of responses to a potential attack.

Effective defenses also reduce incentives for states to acquire missiles in the first place, by undermining their military utility and thus promoting our nonproliferation goals.

We have come a long way from early programs and tests in the 1980s and 90s. Since 2001, we have had 26 successful hit-to-kill intercepts out of 34 attempts. And 15 of the last 16 flight tests have been successful in the past couple of years.

Given this trend of success, we are confident that these systems will work, and that they will represent a practical 21st century solution to the new threat we all face. The system we have in mind is limited, and the missiles have no warhead at all. It is oriented against a potential enemy with a small arsenal, attempting to blackmail our people, sow chaos, and sap our collective will.

Development of such a limited system is realistic. Critics of this approach should also be realistic: This system is of no use against a huge nuclear and ballistic missile arsenal, such as that possessed by Russia.

Talk of a new "arms race" with Russia is anachronistic and not grounded in reality: America and Russia under the Treaty of Moscow are reducing our strategic nuclear warheads to levels not seen in decades.

Security should be—must be—discussed in a cooperative, multilateral way.

That is why the United States has consulted extensively about our plans over the last few years both with Russia and our Allies, including in Moscow, within NATO, and at the NATO-Russia Council, most recently on April 19.

NATO and Russia have had good, practical cooperation on theater missile defense for the past seven years. We look forward to continued and expanded cooperation both in NATO and with Russia.

President Bush has reaffirmed to President Putin our desire to cooperate with Russia on missile defense, and a US delegation offered new proposals for potential partnership with Russia in this area in Moscow on April 17.

We both have planned visits to Moscow to follow up and advance our consultations with the Russians – Secretary Gates recently completed a visit on April 24, and Secretary Rice will be visiting next month.

Our collective defense is too important for us to fall prey to scare tactics, slogans from the past, or attempts to drive wedges between us.

NATO has a role in missile defense. So do bilateral arrangements between America, our Allies, and hopefully also with Russia.

We all face an emerging common threat, and America has proposed a practical solution.

Europe, above all, must know – based on its own modern history - that the time to cooperate is now, not when the threat is imminent.


  1. I know, the same old thing at the Elephant Bar, paranoia about Islam. If you are tired of it now, there surely is a fluffer-nutter site that is more to your liking. But the beat goes on here at the EB.

    These people are out to kill you and destroy your society. Have your snits with each other. Argue. Fight. Boycott. Do whatever but every minute of every day there are millions by the hundreds that want you dead and your society toasted.

    All at the grace and behest of Allah most merciful.

  2. The missile defense systems are great, Deuce, but we have no "cultural defense" systems. This war of asymmetry MUST be fought on many levels and from many different directions. Plus, the best defense is a strong offense. We’re not “offensive” enough!

    I don't think people are tired of "the paranoia about Islam", we're tired of NOT ACTUALLY FIGHTING THE WAR WITH THE GOAL OF WINNING!

    This "fact" has been discussed here over and over again. Our leaders are PC WIMPS, not fighters, like our soldiers.

    However, my guess would be that the "awareness split"; the people who truly recognize the threat of Islam vs those who think Harry reid is a statesman, is about 60%-40%. The 40% recognize the threat.

  3. Here's a terrific example from El Bush's pals, the Saudis!

  4. What's really disappointing is that the US has not started the discussion with the other UNSC permanent 5 to press a decision taking over the oil fields.

  5. The alternative to the Isamic bomb have been weighed. By Mr Reagan and others, since.

    The "Dire Conswequences" that Mr Reagan promised the Pakistani never materialized. The real eventual conseqwence was more paid, to Pakistan, in tribute.

    Whether or not the patrons of the Bar, or even those of the BC, believe that Mohammed and his horde are the enemy makes little difference.

    Only 30% or so of the US public support Mr Bush and the continuing Iraq adventure. But even most of those folk may agree with the President that Islam is a Religion of Peace.

    How could anyone aware of Mr Bushs' position on Islam believe that he believes that Mohammedans are the core of the challenge facing the US?

    He denies that Islam is the problem.

  6. yes, i agree. the oil fields should be taken away. Unfortunately oil is so critical for our world's present reality that it should not be controlled by Islam.

  7. The US and Englans are moving away from that scenarion, taking the oil.

    In fact the Brits departure from Basra and the Iraqi southland abandons the Iraqi oilfields to the Iraqi.

    The US is fighting the Sunni in the north central section of Iraq, while the Shia mismanage and steal the resources of the south.

    It is called SUCCESS, by the US, Mr Bush, Mr Cheney and Ms Rice all joined in the chorus.

    We should've kept on keepin' on, in '03, but that was then, this is now. Not what could have been, but never was.

  8. Is the War on Terror Over?
    By Victor Davis Hanson

    Do we still need to fight a war on terror?

    The answer seems to be no for an increasing number in the West who are weary over Afghanistan and Iraq or complacent from the absence of a major attack on the scale of 9/11.

    The British Foreign Office has scrapped the phrase "war on terror" as inexact, inflammatory and counterproductive. U.S. Central Command has just dropped the term "long war" to describe the fight against radical Islam.

  9. Missle defense shields treat the symptom, not the sickness.

    I'm with George Patton. Attack and annihilate the bastards at every opportunity so they don't have the time, resources or inclination to build nuclear missles.

    Keep them preoccupied trying to make dinner out of ratmeat and building shelter from brick rubble.

    We lost the momentum by limp-dicking with the middle east after 9/11.

    So far, harboring terrorists in your country seems to be a pretty safe bet. So much for "with us or with the terrorists."

    Mushroom clouds in Paris might wake the west up. Too bad, too. I like their bread, cheese and wine.

  10. MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told The Politico that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should resign, ...

    Then Robert Novak opines:
    Bush Behind Barricades
    By Robert Novak

  11. It all comes down to cost analysis. And in my ledger, the Bush administration scores very poorly on that front.