• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

In 1977, “Star Wars” was the most popular movie around. By 1984, it had become a derogatory term used by liberals to ridicule Ronald Reagan’s plan to defend this country from a nuclear attack by using space- and land-based interceptors that would shield us from all incoming missiles.

At that time, our only deterrence against a nuclear attack was something called MAD, which was short for Mutual Assured Destruction. It was an appropriate acronym. You nuke us; then we’ll nuke you – and together we will blow ourselves off the face of the earth and take the rest of the world with us. Even for Reagan, a man with a strong belief in God and the hereafter, that was a terrible option.

The left went crazy when he presented this idea. What happened to sitting cross-legged around a solar heat source with the rest of the world’s leaders and singing “Kumbaya”? “We’ll get rid of our nukes. You’ll do the same, and we’ll all be friends. Kumbaya, kumbaya.”

“It is impossible to hit a missile with a missile!” they whined. “It will blow up the budget and keep us from creating a perfect green world where every basic need is provided by the government. No, no we will not waste money on this Star Wars dream of yours!”

Despite, all the groans from the left, Reagan pursued his dream and this country – and many others – are much safer for it.

During the Gulf War, the Patriot anti-missile defense system was trotted out, and the world watched as lives were saved. Voila!

The left grudgingly had to admit that it was, indeed, possible to hit a missile with a missile! Gasp, Ronald Reagan had been right!

Nevertheless, the pressure from the left has been relentless, and these programs were scaled back. Today, there is no infallible space-based shield that Ronald Reagan envisioned. We do have limited land and sea-based missile defense, and, yes, we can thank God and Ronald Reagan for that.

However, thanks to the left, our ability to defend against weapons of mass destruction is still limited at best.

Not a pleasant thought in the face of madmen like Kim Jong-un, who has drawn up battle plans to hit our friends in South Korea and Guam as well as parts of the U.S. Many are downplaying his threats. Most doubt that he has the nuclear payload to go on an ICBM that can be lobbed over here. But what about the crazies in Iran? If not today, what about tomorrow or the day after that?

The truth is we don’t know just how mad these leaders are or exactly when they will have that capability – limited though it may be – but we do know they are working on it. Bear in mind, just one nuclear ICBM that successfully makes its way through our spotty defense system will spoil your whole day and make what happened at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, seem like small potatoes.

Personally, I thought it was a little tacky for the Obama administration to beat its chest and preen as it announced that it is increasing the number of our mid-range, land-based interceptors in Alaska in light of Kim Jong-un’s recent threats. For the most part, the media gave him yet another pass on it.

Wasn’t this the same Barack Obama who pushed to cut missile defense and canceled those Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) interceptors in Alaska planned by George W. Bush from 44 to 30 shortly after becoming president? Now, thanks to Obama, they will not be in place and operational until 2017. Thanks to the left, even when they are operational, our defense against these weapons still will not be impenetrable.

Reagan, like JFK who put us on a path to send men to the moon, was a visionary. Unfortunately, both of these men’s plans have been compromised. Funny, those who have squandered billions of our tax dollars trying to prove the theory of human-induced global warming never seem to tire of this extravagance, while shaking their heads at those of us who see space as a starting point, not an end.

Was it too much to expect Obama to say, “Thank you, Ronald Reagan that we now have this technology – the technology that I first canceled and now am willing to deploy”?

Instead of crowing about his latest decision, eating a little crow would be much more appropriate.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.