William Cohen, Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, isn’t thrilled about the idea of cutting missile defense spending while rogue nations are testing nukes and launching ballistic missiles. He thinks that might just be a bad maneuver.

Since words have no impact upon North Korea’s stratagems and actions, the U.S. should say little in response and give that country even less when it comes to economic assistance. Kim Jong-il has built a throne of swords; he should be made to sit on it.

It should be noted that the rationale for constructing a missile-defense system was not only to defend our homeland against the mad or messianic of limited means, but also to serve as a last resort against an accidental launch of an ICBM by a major power.

Reducing the funding commitment to our missile-defense system by $1.4 billion, as the Obama administration has done, sends the signal that we do not take the threats of rogue regimes seriously, and are willing to take the risk that current technologies are sufficient to prevent devastating accidents or miscalculations.

Given the disturbing geopolitical events that are now unfolding, it is imperative that we err on the side of safety. The consequences are too grave to allow our leadership to claim at some future time that they were taken by surprise.

Cutting missile-defense funding at this critical juncture sends the wrong signal to both our adversaries and our allies. It would embolden North Korea, Iran and other rogue states to pursue missiles of increasing range. It would also confuse our allies and undermine their trust in America’s security guarantees. If the United States is vulnerable to the threat of a missile attack by a rogue state, allies could lose confidence in America’s nuclear deterrent – which could lead nations such as Japan to pursue a nuclear deterrent of their own.

The world isn’t about to give up its stockpile of nuclear weapons, and neither are we. The only true deterrant against today’s threats, including those coming from nations that care very little about mutually-assured destruction, is a missile defense system. The government has an obligation to “provide for the common defense”. In today’s world, that includes a system capable of taking out a nuclear missile on course to our homeland.

Look, the missile defense system won’t protect us from hundreds of missiles coming at us at once. But that’s not its purpose, either. Nations such as Russia, with huge stockpiles of weapons that would render the system pretty much useless, tend to still abide by the law of MAD. That’s one reason that Russia’s objections to the European missile shield are baseless. But missile defense would make a serious difference when it comes to rogue nations like North Kora, Iran, and other related states.

Now, as the DPRK talks of war and continues its testing of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, is hardly the time to cut back defenses that would render their weapons useless against us. Cutting missile defense spending at this point would be reckless and irresponsible.