Arms Race: Missile Defenses v Rogue State Nukes

The Iranians are threatening Israel with annihilation, not the other way around.  Iranian demonstrators have been encouraged by their government for years to chant “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”  ever since 1979.  The ayatollahs say they will wipe Israel off the map.   My guess, based on the Israeli view of the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust, is that Israel will use their nukes if they have to, especially when the Iranians explicitly threaten them.  The fact is that Israel has nuclear capable ballistic missiles that can reach Iran.  My guess, based on their view of the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust, is that Israel will use their nukes if they have to.   Israel also has a formidable air force.  However, it's likely that only the US, and not Israel, has the capability to significantly damage Iran's nuclear program with conventional weapons.  If the US does not take care of the Iran threat, then we may force the Israelis to use their missiles with nuclear warheads to preclude an Iranian nuclear breakout.  The only thing that could stop Israel from attacking is a significant missile defense capability.  So as it stands now, it’s a race between Israeli missile defense and Iranian nuclear weapon development.  The president says that all options are on the table.  However, he seems to be signaling, with all of his diplomacy, that the US will sit this one out militarily.  Does that seem like a smart thing to do?  

The US needs robust missile defenses as well.  Missile defenses make a small number of ICBM's less valuable.  They would tend to discourage North Korea from trying to build enough ICBM's to be effective as a credible threat to the US, because the cost would be prohibitive for them.  The argument that US missile defenses might offend the Russians and Chinese is appeasement pure and simple.  The liberal line on these issues is always in favor of spending less on defending ourselves, so we can spend more on domestic "investment," like Solyndra and Fisker.  It's how liberals buy their votes, but  it is not a rational approach to defending ourselves.

Article on need for missile defenses

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/346579/our-much-needed-missile-defense

Description of Israeli Ballistic Missile Capability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ICBMs

Thoughts of John Locke on Holocaust Day

Recent articles on Holocaust Day have drawn comments that religion is a big contributor to violence and even genocide.  I think the problem is not religion itself, but rather the claim that what any individual believes to be the word of God should be held superior to other views by secular authority and forced on those who disagree.  I got this opinion while reading books by John Locke, starting in philosophy class in college.  The professor didn't think he was much of a philosopher, but I thought he was great.  Locke argued that government derives its power and legitimacy from the consent of the governed.  His views were extremely influential in the formulation of the government the US has today.  Please take a look at the wikipedia entry for John Locke, and in particular his views on religious toleration.   He was a very religious man who argued that human judges could not dependably evaluate competing versions of the word of God.  According to Locke, “No private person has any right to encroach in any way on another person’s civil goods because he declares his allegiance to another church or religion. Anything that a man has as a matter of human rights or civil rights is to remain inviolably his.”  Locke’s argument for toleration lead to the First Amendment provisions for freedom of religion.

Original article on Holocaust Day:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/345043/lessons-holocaust-day-dennis-prager?pg=3

Wikipedia entry for John Locke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

Source of Locke Quotation

http://www.egs.edu/library/john-locke/quotes/