There are a few important subjects that never seem to be discussed by the presidential candidates. Let's consider some of them.
The first issue is the nuclear weapons arsenal held by North Korea and soon by Iran. The NK's claim to have exploded a hydrogen bomb, and we know for certain that they possess atomic fission weapons of the sort dropped on Hiroshima. We also know that the NK's possess intercontinental ballistic missiles which were developed with the assistance of both Iran and China. No one is certain (at least not in public) just how accurate the North Korean missiles are or even what their range is. We do know, however, that Hawaii, Alaska and the entire West Coast of the USA are within the range of these missiles. It is also believed that the NK's have learned how to miniaturize their bombs so that they can be delivered by their missiles.
Given these facts, there needs to be consideration of America strategy to deal with this threat. After a whole year of endless political debates, speeches, and the like, I have yet to see any candidate set forth any policy in this regard. Think about it. Have you heard any of the candidates discuss completion of the anti-missile defense shield that could stop the North Korean missiles? Three decades ago, when Ronald Reagan first proposed an anti-missile defense, his opponents ridiculed the idea and called the system "Star Wars" because it was supposedly such a fantasy. Today, however, we have seen these defense systems work. The Israeli Iron Dome system destroyed hundreds or thousands of missiles fired from Gaza towards populated areas. The Hamas rain of missiles was neutralized. The USA has also successfully tested and deployed a system that is aimed at the destruction of incoming ballistic missiles. When president Obama first took office, he stopped the full deployment of that anti-missile system, but that decision has later been reversed as both the North Koreans and Iranians got closer to deployment of nuclear missiles. The American system, however, is not 100% reliable. It needs a significant upgrade as well as installation of additional anti-missile batteries as the abilities of Iran and North Korea to launch attacks grows. Obama is doing none of this.
Shouldn't both the Democrat and Republican candidates be asked about their views on this system? Don't the American people have the right to know whether or not the next president will expand and perfect our defense or else leave us only semi-protected? Sadly, no one even asks about it.
A second subject that never seems to be discussed is spending discipline. Hillary talks about raising taxes and new items on which to spend federal money. Some of the Republicans talk about controlling spending through various means. Why can't the candidates be asked to name programs on which they would spend less? Why can't we get a list of programs or items that are no longer needed (or a statement that everything on which the federal government now spends its cash is essential and untouchable)? Think of someone like John Kasich who never misses an opportunity to tell us how when he led the budget committee, he balance the budget (as if it really were his accomplishment alone.) Why not ask governor Kasich to name five items that he would cut from the federal budget or at least five items on which he would reduce spending?
These are just two critical areas that get ignored. There are many more. We would all learn a lot more about the candidates if the media stopped asking them questions about polls or election strategies and started to focus more on some of the key issues that the country is facing.
The first issue is the nuclear weapons arsenal held by North Korea and soon by Iran. The NK's claim to have exploded a hydrogen bomb, and we know for certain that they possess atomic fission weapons of the sort dropped on Hiroshima. We also know that the NK's possess intercontinental ballistic missiles which were developed with the assistance of both Iran and China. No one is certain (at least not in public) just how accurate the North Korean missiles are or even what their range is. We do know, however, that Hawaii, Alaska and the entire West Coast of the USA are within the range of these missiles. It is also believed that the NK's have learned how to miniaturize their bombs so that they can be delivered by their missiles.
Given these facts, there needs to be consideration of America strategy to deal with this threat. After a whole year of endless political debates, speeches, and the like, I have yet to see any candidate set forth any policy in this regard. Think about it. Have you heard any of the candidates discuss completion of the anti-missile defense shield that could stop the North Korean missiles? Three decades ago, when Ronald Reagan first proposed an anti-missile defense, his opponents ridiculed the idea and called the system "Star Wars" because it was supposedly such a fantasy. Today, however, we have seen these defense systems work. The Israeli Iron Dome system destroyed hundreds or thousands of missiles fired from Gaza towards populated areas. The Hamas rain of missiles was neutralized. The USA has also successfully tested and deployed a system that is aimed at the destruction of incoming ballistic missiles. When president Obama first took office, he stopped the full deployment of that anti-missile system, but that decision has later been reversed as both the North Koreans and Iranians got closer to deployment of nuclear missiles. The American system, however, is not 100% reliable. It needs a significant upgrade as well as installation of additional anti-missile batteries as the abilities of Iran and North Korea to launch attacks grows. Obama is doing none of this.
Shouldn't both the Democrat and Republican candidates be asked about their views on this system? Don't the American people have the right to know whether or not the next president will expand and perfect our defense or else leave us only semi-protected? Sadly, no one even asks about it.
A second subject that never seems to be discussed is spending discipline. Hillary talks about raising taxes and new items on which to spend federal money. Some of the Republicans talk about controlling spending through various means. Why can't the candidates be asked to name programs on which they would spend less? Why can't we get a list of programs or items that are no longer needed (or a statement that everything on which the federal government now spends its cash is essential and untouchable)? Think of someone like John Kasich who never misses an opportunity to tell us how when he led the budget committee, he balance the budget (as if it really were his accomplishment alone.) Why not ask governor Kasich to name five items that he would cut from the federal budget or at least five items on which he would reduce spending?
These are just two critical areas that get ignored. There are many more. We would all learn a lot more about the candidates if the media stopped asking them questions about polls or election strategies and started to focus more on some of the key issues that the country is facing.
No comments:
Post a Comment