Message-ID: <19589892.1075863325699.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 08:23:05 -0700 (PDT) From: charles.weldon@enron.com To: bobby.eberle@gopusa.com Subject: RE: Guest Commentary: Now, more than ever Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Weldon, V. Charles X-To: 'bobby.eberle@gopusa.com' X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \VWELDON (Non-Privileged)\Sent Items X-Origin: Weldon-C X-FileName: VWELDON (Non-Privileged).pst Very cool. Did you get my e-mail about the game and Sat night? -----Original Message----- From: "Bobby Eberle" @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 >To: Peter Roff >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