by J. R. Practix

ABM: abbr. anti-ballistic missile.

I’m in favor of that.

Normally, I wouldn’t call myself an “anti” person. But if we were taking a vote on ballistic missiles, I would have no trouble in joining the camp of those who would be against them.

There’s nothing positive about a ballistic missile. If you fired one at someone else, even the most hard-hearted individual would have to consider that human life was being destroyed–not even to mention tainting the land, which you would soon occupy through your conquering.

On the other hand, if someone’s fired a ballistic missile YOUR way, reasons for regret and dismay may be obvious.

One would think that the natural inclination would be to fall into the category of ant- ballistic missile. Isn’t it interesting, though, that the only way we have found to overcome the stupidity of creating a ballistic missile is by inventing another missile, which is shot into the air to prevent the first missile from hitting its target–by making the missile shot off first a new target?

Wouldn’t it just be easier to get RID of the ballistic missiles, instead of spending millions and millions of dollars to come up with a way to inhibit the dastardly original monster?

So let me get this straight–if someone shoots a ballistic missile at me, I now have a missile which I call an ABM, to shoot at their missile. Doesn’t that just open the door for an AABM? An anti-anti-ballistic missile, which is shot off simultaneously WITH the ballistic missile, to hit the anti-ballistic missile, so that the ballistic missile can pursue its mission of destruction?

And we wonder why politics and governments are constantly in turmoil of meaningless and confusing rhetoric. After all, if you are not willing to admit that the original idea of a ballistic missile needs to be eliminated, then you will spend your time constantly coming up with new “anti” plans to outdo your previous “anti” efforts.

Back to the original thought: if  we’re taking a vote–I’m anti-ballistic missile.