|
|
Enron Mail |
Very cool.
Did you get my e-mail about the game and Sat night? -----Original Message----- From: "Bobby Eberle" <eberle13@hotmail.com<@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Bobby+20Eberle+22+20+3Ceberle13+40hotmail+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com] Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 8:59 AM To: Weldon, V. Charles Subject: Fwd: Guest Commentary: Now, more than ever FYI. My column was picked up by UPI. Pretty cool man. Bobby <From: Peter Roff <PRoff@upi.com< <To: Peter Roff <PRoff@upi.com< <Subject: Guest Commentary: Now, more than ever <Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 09:53:27 -0400 < <Guest Commentary: Now, more than ever < <By BOBBY EBERLE, Special to UPI < <HOUSTON (UPI) -- After the Sept. 11 attack on New York and Washington, <there <are some who have begun pushing more earnestly than ever for a missile <defense system. Others have scoffed, asking, "How can a missile defense <system stop an airplane from hitting a building?" < <Well, guess what... it can't. In fact, depending on how much notice is <given <for such an attack, there is not much that can be done to stop an airplane <from hitting a building. Anti-aircraft batteries on rooftops, which were <recently deployed in Moscow, may or may not be effective. But we are not <helpless in the face of such attacks. One way to stop airplanes from <hitting <buildings is to stop them being hijacked. With the resources at our <disposal, there is no doubt that airports can be made much safer for <travel. < <But the attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon also reveal <a deeper security need, which extends beyond the necessity to stop <airplanes <from being hijacked. These horrible terrorist attacks paint a clear picture <of the need for a missile defense system. < <America, as a sovereign and free nation, has an obligation to defend itself <and to ensure the safety and well-being of her citizens. This is a <fundamental function of government; something upon which liberals and <conservatives easily agree. In the face of danger -- whether from an <aggressor nation or a group of religious extremists -- the United States <must be able to defend itself using whatever means are necessary and <appropriate for the situation at hand. < <What is meant by necessary and appropriate? Let's look at our current <situation and construct a possible scenario: < <The Bush administration orders the build-up of military personnel. Plans <are <made to attack Afghanistan through bombing and ground assault in order to <give the ruling Taliban regime no other choice but to give up suspected <terrorist Osama bin Laden, his lieutenants, and end their support of <terrorism. The Taliban assemble their forces in an attempt to fend off the <U.S. attack. Unsuccessful, lacking other means of direct retaliation and <subject to increased pressure from surrounding countries, the Taliban <deliver on America's demands. < <But this outcome is possible only if the nation being attacked lacks <nuclear <weapons. What if the terrorist attack came from a nuclear power or one <suspected of having that capability in the near future? The options for the <United States quickly become infinitely more complex. < <Consider a fictional scenario in which the terrorist attack came from <people <within a country possessing nuclear weapons. < <Terrorists attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Intelligence <sources suggest that the culprit has ties to Country X and is being <sheltered there. The U.S. denounces the attacks, calling them an act of <war. <Negotiations to persuade the Country X to turn over the leader of the <terrorist assault are opened. < <At the same time, the U.S. prepares a plan of attack to apprehend the <terrorists. The negotiations fail. The U.S. begins bombing. As a result, <fanatics seize control of the government of Country X. The new leaders, <knowing their conventional forces are no match for the United States -- and <believing that the United States and Israel are twin pillars of evil -- <launch a nuclear missile at Israel. What happens next is anyone's guess. < <There is an obvious question which should be asked when contemplating a <retaliatory strike against potential enemies like North Korea, Iran, China: <"How would the U.S. react if attacked by conventional weapons from a <nuclear <state?" < <If we were to invade, the consequences could include the destruction of New <York, Los Angeles, or any other major metropolitan area in the U.S. by a <nuclear missile. Are we prepared to take that risk in order to obtain <justice? Would we launch our own nuclear weapons? < <If a strategic and theater missile defense system were in place, the <fictional scenario described above would likely have a completely different <outcome. Missiles launched against Israel, or long-range missiles launched <against the United States, could be destroyed, allowing U.S. conventional <forces to do the job they were ordered to do. < <America cannot be held hostage by rogue states or unstable governments <simply because they possess nuclear weapons. The effectiveness of <conventional military forces is greatly reduced if the United States is <afraid to use them because of the potential consequences. < <One threat against the United States and its allies, who are now easy <targets of any fanatic with a finger on the button, can be virtually <eliminated through an effective missile defense system. We can give America <a means by which its hands are not tied when it comes time to take action. <The best way to ensure that America's conventional forces are feared is to <render the enemies' nuclear weapons ineffective. We can't afford to wait <much longer. < <-0- < <(Robert R. Eberle, Ph.D. is president and chief executive officer of <GOPUSA, <an Internet-based news, information, and commentary magazine with a <conservative point of view.) < <--Copyright 2001 by United Press International. All rights reserved.-- < < < _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
|