|
Learn
about POWER
INVESTOR, the screening software I recommend in my
books. It costs only $99 but tracks more stocks and funds
than MetaStock ($929) and Window on Wallstreet ($704). |
Articles
Give
Us Missile Defense & Give Us Guns
by Jason Kelly
9/14/2001
It didn't
take long for critics of missile defense to use Tuesday's
terrorist attack as a forum to speak out. Robert Wright of
Slate, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and others have pointed
out in print and on television that a national missile defense
(NMD) system would have been useless against the passenger
planes used on Tuesday. Therefore, they conclude, we should
not build NMD at all.
This is
so shortsighted and far afield of Tuesday's real lesson that
it's hard to know where to begin a rebuttal. But here it is.
It's
true that NMD would have been unable to thwart Tuesday's attack.
It's also true that a host of other pieces of our defense
arsenal were useless as well. Fast attack submarines did nothing
to halt the terrorists. Platoons of Marines proved ineffective.
Indeed, the M-1 Abrams tank wasn't worth a darn.
Do
we take from Tuesday the conclusion that we do not need submarines,
platoons of Marines, or M-1 tanks? Of course not. They might
not be any good against hijacked passenger jets, but they've
proven downright handy for naval blockades, amphibious landings,
and ground warfare.
But,
alas, I miss the point of NMD critics and, I suspect, most
everybody will miss that point after Tuesday. Prior to Tuesday,
the underlying theme of NMD critics was that the world was
not as dangerous as it was during the hot wars of the past
or the cold war concluded in the Reagan Administration.
I
gave a speech in Glendale, California just three weeks ago
in which I needed to spend several minutes illustrating that
the world is not a warm, fuzzy, politically correct forum.
There are bad guys, I said, and held up that day's Los
Angeles Times covering the need for Israel to assassinate
key Palestinian terrorist leaders, regardless of their nonmilitary
status or age. I could see in the eyes of my audience, a Toastmaster
club of mixed gender, ethnicity, and age, a glossy skepticism.
I
venture to say that at least that part of the argument does
not need to be restated anymore. The not-so-nice element of
the world made itself well known on Tuesday so that even the
most rosy cheeked optimists among us would concede the possibility
that, no, we can't all "just get along." So the one big happy
world so often alluded to by Senator Feinstein and others
against NMD will now seem absurd.
What
should seem just as absurd is the notion that because terrorists
chose to attack us this time in a way that would have been
unstoppable by NMD, we should not build NMD. Have the critics
noticed that Saddam Hussein and other rogues are working hard
on long range nuclear capability? If Osama bin Laden were
able to write a check from his personal bank account of some
$300 million for his very own intercontinental ballistic missile,
is there anybody left among us who thinks he wouldn't send
it promptly on its way toward the United States? I should
hope not. If that day comes, wouldn't it be nice to have NMD
in place so his missile is shot out of the sky somewhere over
the ocean?
As
awful as the carnage from Tuesday is, I daresay it would be
just an appetizer to the main course served by a nuclear warhead.
Imagine losing not just the twin towers in downtown Manhattan,
but ALL of Manhattan. It's almost too much to fathom. But
not long ago, so was the prospect of losing the World Trade
Center.
We need a stronger defense across the board, including NMD.
Because
the critics are being opportunistic at this vulnerable time,
I feel the need to return the favor. Might I suggest that
if every person aboard the hijacked planes had been carrying
a personal firearm, the hijacking would never have taken place?
Few people, even terrorist madmen, would pull a gun on a well-armed
crowd of people.
I'm
not suggesting that all air travelers be given temporary handguns
for the duration of their flights. What I'm pointing out is
the truth of the adage, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws
will have guns." In Tuesday's case, it was knives and box
cutters, but the lessons hold true. When good people are defenseless
against bad people, bad things happen. Terrorists are able
to herd passengers to the back of the plane, overtake pilots
in the cockpit, and steer the plane into 110 stories of American
office space.
Cage
off that cockpit and mount shotguns on the cabin walls. Allow
civilians who show an ID certifying that they have passed
a handgun safety and responsibility course to carry a personal
firearm in public places.
A
plane is a microcosm of our greater society. I live in Los
Angeles where every thug, drug dealer, and teenage gangster
on the street seems to be packing heat. Meanwhile, hunters
wait for weeks and pay large fees to keep a rifle at home.
Box
cutters in the hands of terrorists, and firearms in the hands
of criminals. Against unarmed civilians, they can do great
damage. Against equally armed civilians, the cowards might
not do much of anything.
Now,
wouldn't that be a nice, warm, fuzzy world?
Return to Articles
|
5–9 reader votes 
10–19 reader votes 
20+ reader votes