Crap... How do I respond to this?

[Starks]

"Country X launches missiles at us... They are in the air, crossing the ocean, and not more than a few hours away. What does President Paul do?"

[NewEnd]

retaliates

That is one of the few instances where a president has the option to fight back without constitutional discretion.

I have no doubt ron paul would retaliate immediately, just like reagan promised to if the USSR launched its nukes.

[ValidusCustodiae]

We have missile defense out the yin yang. We have planes that can take out missiles with fricken laser beams from hundreds of miles away. We blow it out of the sky! Ron Paul may be a Constitutionalist, but the Constitution provides for a strong national defense and that involves some pretty nifty toys. :D

[SwooshOU]

Seems like a "Well, duh..." to me. what am I missing?

[FluffyUnbound]

You could start by pointing out that there are only a handful of countries with delivery systems that can cross oceans. Of those nations, most are our allies. The other two [Russia and China], well - if they launch a nuclear missile attack on the US, the world will end so it doesn't matter what President Paul does.

[barcop]

He answered that in the last debate. If we are under imminate attack the president can act without going to congress.

[Taco John]

He launches missles back... Mutually assured destruction.

[brumans]

He stops the missle from hitting us?
He doesn't need congressional approval to do that, does he?

[SwooshOU]

It would be like asking in the 1700s if someone was in mid-sword-thrust aimed at me, what should I do?

[ronpaulyourmom]

"Country X launches missiles at us... They are in the air, crossing the ocean, and not more than a few hours away. What does President Paul do?"

It's called an imminent attack, and Ron Paul stated very clearly in the CNBC debate that he would immediately react without seeking the consent of the congress. I think there may be something about this in the Constitution.

[jrich4rpaul]

missile defense. we've had it since Reagan.

[Drknows]

He launches missles back... Mutually assured destruction.

Yeah but what if aliens intercept them and turn them back on us what then... what then,,,

[Starks]

He stops the missle from hitting us?
He doesn't need congressional approval to do that, does he?

That assumes that our Patriot missile systems work.

[Akus]

"Country X launches missiles at us... They are in the air, crossing the ocean, and not more than a few hours away. What does President Paul do?"

isn't there an imminent danger exception in the constitution to the whole "must ask Congress if it's ok" thing?

[conner_condor]

Kiss the launching country good bye........ Can you say hiroshima??

[reaver]

I think he would have had missile defense setup beforehand. Right?

[Akus]

Yeah but what if aliens intercept them and turn them back on us what then... what then,,,

damn you win:rolleyes:

[Give me liberty]

well we could destory those missiles by our anti-missile laser systems.

[manuel]

Missile defense system. We have it and President Paul would use it. Then, asses where the attack came from and act accordingly.

[voortrekker]

We would know about that before the missiles were 5 mins in the air.

And these missiles would be defeated by our anti-missile defense system.

What are you trying to say?

[kylejack]

Ron stated the President can attack when there's an imminent threat...he qualified that by asking who would dare attack us, out of the capable countries.

[LibertyEagle]

The person asking the question seems to think that Paul is a wuss and he is not. He is for a strong national DEFENSE. What they are getting confused about is that the others are for a strong OFFENSE. Even to the point of preemptively nuking countries who have not attacked us, nor pose an imminent threat to our national security. What they are proposing is against everything our country has always stood. Not to mention the fact that it totally goes against the Christian Doctrine of Just War. They are apparently more interested in building bases, roads and bridges in Iraq, than they are defending our own borders and repairing our own roads and bridges. How they can believe this is national security is beyond me.

[Sean]

Ron Paul would give the military the order to attack and defend us and then go to Congress and ask for a formal Declaration of War.

[Ninja Homer]

There's a big difference between defending the country and declaring war.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Ron is the only one who offers a true vision for protecting America:
1.) Build up our defenses at home
2.) Protect our Front Door by securing our borders
3.) Trading and talking with nations

Dr. Paul has the prescription to end the isolationism of George W Bush! We are more isolated from the world than ever before and we have far less friends than in years past. Renew the good relations with other nations!

[misconstrued]

"Country X launches missiles at us... They are in the air, crossing the ocean, and not more than a few hours away. What does President Paul do?"

Well, what Bush would do is invade a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the missiles that were launched at us. :rolleyes:

[pcosmar]

Defending our country and invading or attacking are two different things.
We have a missile defense system and it could be improved. Ron Paul has stated that he believes in a strong defense.
One problem is that many of our defenses, are defending other countries.
That needs to change.

[quickmike]

I dont know about Ron

My answer: make damn sure we start spending on a missile defense system that is infalible, shoot it down, and launch 30 nukes at the country responsible and wipe them completely off the map.

[JPFromTally]

What George Bush would do: Let the missles land and then use it as an excuse to invade a country that had nothing to do with it.

[quickmike]

What George Bush would do: Let the missles land and then use it as an excuse to invade a country that had nothing to do with it.

yep,

spend trillions of dollars sending troops overseas to occupy a country after the damage has been done and pissing everyone in the world off. makes no sense.

Just erase the country off the map in self defense and I guarantee, nobody could blame us for doing it, also nobody else would even think about trying it again.
problem solved.

[Shellshock1918]

"Country X launches missiles at us... They are in the air, crossing the ocean, and not more than a few hours away. What does President Paul do?"

Use the missile defense system he supports.

[freedominnumbers]

I think what Ron Paul would so is allow our missile defense system to intercept the missiles. Then he'd refuse to meet with CFR strategists to plan the war spin. Then he'd determine if a country or terror cell was responsible. Then he'd issue a letter sof marque and reprisal against a terror cell or declare war if the perpetrator was an enemy country.

Likely we'd have Dog the Bounty hunter on A&E broadcasting live as he drags the responsible party to the White House steps to face American justice.

Blackwater would have done the job but they'd still be too busy lobbying CFR members to realize that letters of marque and reprisal were being issued.

[mavtek]

I think he would've handled this question awesomely if he was allowed to answer the missile defense thing. Missile defense system in Eastern Europe? For what! Hello we need a Missile defense system here, they have subs just like us!

[freedominnumbers]

Bottom line. If you install a missile system in a neighboring country I have an obligation to my people to develop a more advanced missile system in the interest of national defense so that we can defend ourselves against a potential 4-8 year term of war mongers who hate us because we trade with their enemies.

Once again the US foreign policy of saber rattling causes an international incident.

[saahmed]

We won't have that problem because if we stay out of other people's business they won't have any reason to attack us.

[Grandson of Liberty]

That's easy. He'd head to the nearest phone booth, fly out and send the missiles into outer space. Duh. :)

[V4Vendetta]

"Country X launches missiles at us... They are in the air, crossing the ocean, and not more than a few hours away. What does President Paul do?"

Hmmm.....
I keep getting a picture of the tin man from "The Wizard of Oz"
IF I ONLY HAD A BRAIN

Starks - you must be thinking to yourself......IF I only had a Brain

[LizF]

The person asking the question seems to think that Paul is a wuss and he is not. He is for a strong national DEFENSE. What they are getting confused about is that the others are for a strong OFFENSE. Even to the point of preemptively nuking countries who have not attacked us, nor pose an imminent threat to our national security. What they are proposing is against everything our country has always stood. Not to mention the fact that it totally goes against the Christian Doctrine of Just War. They are apparently more interested in building bases, roads and bridges in Iraq, than they are defending our own borders and repairing our own roads and bridges. How they can believe this is national security is beyond me.

Concisely and elegantly stated.

[dircha]

"Country X launches missiles at us... They are in the air, crossing the ocean, and not more than a few hours away. What does President Paul do?"

What does President ANYONE do? This isn't a question that is in any way unique to a Paul presidency.

The answer is that we need to stop wasting our resources abroad and instead put some of those resources into building up our missile defense capabilities at home.

Under a Paul presidency we would actually be able to afford this, because we wouldn't be throwing all of our military money and resources into whichever Middle Eastern backwater is harboring Jihadists this week.

Reagan said way back in '79 that MAD was not an adequate answer. That's why he wanted SDI. And today we have already realized some of those capabilities.

[El_ToRrO]

"Country X launches missiles at us... They are in the air, crossing the ocean, and not more than a few hours away. What does President Paul do?"

Not bashing you mate, but the the way you say "Crap... how do i respond to this" kind of makes it sound like deep down you think Ron Paul is a wimp and the person who asked you the question "got you" with that one.

As an outside observer of this whole Ron Paul thing and as a forigner, i have to say that i would be more afraid (if i were one of the bad guys) of Ron Paul's response to either a terrorist attack or an attack from another nation.

Let me explain why with a movie anology...

I see Ron paul being like steven Segal's character in "marked for death", where he talking to his friend about the Jamican drug dealers in the area..."theres nothing you can do about it, there never was....the way i see it you just come home and watch you own yard, then if trouble still finds you, you go after it and bite its head off."

Thats what my intution tells me Ron would be like, like a family man who just wants to live in peace, be freindly n mind his own business and not go looking for trouble, not a wimp but if you F@#CKED with him he would absolutely destroy you. Like if terrorists attacked, i could see him ruthlessly hunting them down with purpose and precision, having no qualms about brutally killing them and making an example of them. He would be justified morally/ethically and even constitutionally. He wouldnt on the other hand go off and invade some other COUNTRY that had nothing to do with it. In my opinion, same goes for any attack by a nation as opposed to a terrorist. Any terrorist leader or leader of an attacking country should be more afraid of somebody like that. The wrath of a peacefull yet strong person would be more ruthless and brutal than that of a bully always looking for trouble.

The other GOP candidates sound like bullies who are always threatening to do this n that. However life experience has taught me that those who always TALK tough tend to do it only with people they know/think they can push around cause they are bigger them or whatever. When they come up against somebody who is closer to their own size or looks like they can handle themselves they tone it down or at least try much harder to avoid a confrontation. Kind of like the way America bullies 3rd world countries with practically no defenses... but when they deal with China or North Korea they are much more diplomatic... if those countries had no military power like the 3rd world 1s....they would stand over them too. Like a typical bully who has no real HEART or no real balls.

Dont be fooled, Ron Paul doesnt talk like a bully, unfortunately this can be mistaken for weakness by the impressionable, but he is no wimp, i see in him REAL strength & courage not the bombastic bluster of a bully.