Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn Congress yesterday, Representative John Tierney, Chair of the House National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, convened the first in a series of hearings to examine a US missile defense program that is out of control, straining relations with allies, and renewing an arms race with Russia.
This is the first comprehensive review of the program since 1993 – the year before Republicans took control of Congress – and it's long overdue. The focus yesterday was on the extent of the missile threat – as compared to other security vulnerabilities – and whether spending more than $10 billion annually on ballistic missile defense (BMD) is justifiable from that perspective.
In his opening statement, Rep. Tierney pointed out that we have spent over $120 billion on missile defense in the past 25 years; that the annual budget is expected to double by 2013 to $19 billion; and that the current $10 billion per year is equal to one-third of the Homeland Security budget, roughly equal to the State Department budget, greater than the FEMA budget, 20 times greater than public diplomacy expenditures, and 30 times greater than Peace Corps.
Dr. Stephen Flynn, Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and a retired Coast Guard Commander, testified that the "non-missile risk" – smuggling a weapon of mass destruction into the US by ship, train, truck, or private jet – is "far greater than the ballistic missile threat…." He noted that smuggling is the only realistic option for a terrorist group like al Qaeda; it offers anonymity to any attacking nation and therefore protection from retaliation; seaports, borders, and overseas flights "provide a rich menu of non-missile options"; and it has greater potential to "generate cascading economic consequences by disrupting global supply chains."
Despite these risks, Flynn said, "The combined budgets for funding all the domestic and international port of entry interdiction efforts… is equal to roughly one-half of the annual budget for developing missile defense. Nowhere in the US government has there been or is there now an evaluation of whether that represents an appropriate balance….The amount of resources we dedicate to the [more serious threat of cargo delivery] is miniscule compared to the kinds of resources we invest in dealing with the ballistic missile threat. That's the kind of disconnect we're operating in."
Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund and author of Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons, provided the Committee with an even more pointed assessment. He recalled his past work for the House Armed Services Committee and the National Security Subcommittee during the Cold War. "At that time, we were not worried about a prototype Iranian missile that might or might not be deployed. We were worried about 5,000 Soviet warheads… destroying not just our country but most likely this planet. I have known ballistic missile threats, I have researched ballistic missile threats. Mr. Chairman, this is not a serious ballistic missile threat that we face today…. [It] is limited and changing relatively slowly. There is every reason to believe that it can be addressed through measured military preparedness and aggressive diplomacy."
Cirincione, who organized the last serious hearings on the program as a staff member of the Government Operations Committee, pointed out that there are fewer ballistic missiles today than 10-20 years ago; fewer hostile missiles potentially threatening the US; there are five more countries that have started medium-range missile programs but they are poorer and less technologically advanced than the countries that had long-range ballistic missile programs some 20 years ago, and the total number of medium-range missiles has decreased by 80 percent.
"The vast majority of nations with ballistic missiles have only short-range missiles with ranges under 1000 kilometers, basically Scuds," Cirincione said. "This is often ignored when officials or experts cite the ‘30 countries with ballistic missile capability.' That's true, there are approximately 28. But of these, 17 have only Scud-B missiles or similar. Most of these are friends or allies."
Rep. Stephen Lynch asked whether the allocation of resources is proportional to the threat.
"Absolutely not. I believe that the Ballistic Missile Defense program is the longest running scam in the history of the Department of Defense," Cirincione said. "This is an enormous waste of money, and if you leave this decision to the Joint Chiefs they won't spend anything near what this Administration is requesting. In fact, the last time the Joint Chiefs were asked about this in 1993, [they] recommended to then-Pres. Clinton that we spend only $3 billion a year on these kinds of programs, and of that $2.3 billion should be spent on efforts to intercept short-range missiles – the ones that are a real threat to our troops and allies…. We're no further along in our ability to actually hit a real ballistic missile now than we were 20 years ago."
Both Cirincione and Flynn pointed to the disturbing fact that there is no comprehensive threat assessment comparing missile and non-missile threats to our security. "We haven't done a good threat assessment – an intelligence estimate that looks at the non-missile threat and the missile threat," Flynn said.
Cirincione agreed. "I believe that in order for Congress to judge whether these sums are necessary they need a comprehensive assessment of the ballistic missile threat. Congress has never – never – gotten this kind of assessment…. We need a comprehensive threat assessment of what the most serious security threats are facing the United States, and then budget allocations based on that."
Steven Hildreth, specialist in missile defense and nonproliferation for the Congressional Research Service, also warned that threats about a nuclear-armed Korea or Iran might be exaggerated. He testified to "the importance of examining assertions concerning weapon system development and performance." Hildreth noted that in 50 years, only five countries have been able "to develop, test and field ICBMs armed with nuclear warheads" because "the technical, organizational, and management challenges… [are] daunting…. Each and every [aspect] presents a multitude of technological challenges and hurdles to overcome that is not easily done." Hildreth also said that these weapons cannot be hidden, and that they have to be tested in an "observable" way. Despite these facts, Hildreth said, "There have been any number of intelligence assessments and studies that predicted there would be more than five nations that could have accomplished this capability at various times in the past 40 to 50 years….This perspective is lacking in so many of the discussions about ICBM threats today."
With the Administration requesting a record $12.3 billion for missile defense this year, pushing its European-based missile defense system on Czech and Polish citizens who want nothing to do with it, and fueling a new arms race with Russia, the need to put an end to this madness is clear. The jig is up, and hopefully Tierney's hearings will reveal the absolute folly at the root of the Missile Defense Program, and return us to a sane and proven path of diplomacy and nuclear nonproliferation negotiations.
With reporting from Capitol Hill by Greg Kaufmann, a freelance writer residing in his disenfranchised hometown of Washington, DC.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
no amount spent is too much, after all it may work sometime, and then won't we be glad.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/07/2008 @ 11:19am
I was going to take umbrage at being called names, but then I saw who was doing the name calling and with a name like yours, Mr.Shitz, I'd probably resort to namecalling and eschew serious argument--which you seem inacapable of. Sad to see such odious trolls with no life on our good site. I'd suggest you pack up and never come back. kvh
Posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel at 03/07/2008 @ 11:42am
Frankshitz-You did not raise any points.You believe that you are still on the playground and just call people names like a child.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2008 @ 12:06pm
The real genius of this hilarious prank will really only be realized far in the future, when historians slap each other on the back, wipe tears from their eyes, and say, "okay, okay...they had one of the worst presidents ever, if not THE worst, who won 2 elections (sort of), and then they elected a guy whose EVEN WORSE??? Oh God, I can't breathe! Pass the oxygen can!"
Posted by MATTMAN at 03/07/2008 @ 12:09pm
"Although the current or future feasibility of SDI is certainly debatable, the article does not focus on this. It is about a threat risk assessment and appropriate funding."
Posted by JOE KOZAK 03/07/2008 @ 2:51pm
Just when I thought that nobody here read the text of the freakin' article...
Posted by drhammer at 03/07/2008 @ 2:59pm
Posted by DRHAMMER 03/07/2008 @ 2:57pm | ignore this person
Actually it is...
Posted by CPT at 03/07/2008 @ 3:05pm
twenty five years... that's the time between a vacuum sized canister launched in Robert Goddard's back yard and the V2 rocket. in the year twenty five twentyfive......
Posted by emile duBois at 03/07/2008 @ 3:08pm
Posted by DRHAMMER 03/07/2008 @ 2:59pm | ignore this person
What was the risk assessment that detailed that 747 would be utilized as missles against targets in the years prior to 9-11??????? I am going to assess low......
Posted by CPT at 03/07/2008 @ 3:13pm
Shooting things in SPACE is a little more complicated.
Posted by CPT 03/07/2008 @ 3:11pm | ignore this person
not once you've been to the moon, thanks to that V2 rocket. how many rendezvous of rockets did they do before they went to the moon?
this stunt could have been accomplished 40 years ago. the target was stationary for all practical purposes, there was no element of surprise and the strike was contemplated and surely computer simulated for weeks before.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/07/2008 @ 3:25pm
I'm writing from Poland and am currently working on the mobilization against the US missile base here.
I certainly hope it is NOT a done deal. Things are "done deals" when people roll over and die and accept what the government is doing with no resistance. It is perfectly clear that the majority of people do not want these missiles here but it is part of the state's militaristic ambitions to portray itself as a regional (and even imperial) superpower.
It would be very helpful indeed if people in the States would voice their opinions about this, especially during this election year. (Please note, I have no illusions about the demoncrats, but if they think you are a potential voter, they may feel obliged to take an stand on this issue.)
Right now our Czech counterparts have considerable support from American leftists but we have been finding it difficult to get Poland on the agenda. We know that the Czech republic is sexier than Poland, but we're the suckers who might get missiles - and maybe even some nuclear warheads - dumped here, so some solidarity is needed.
If you are around New York or Washington and are against the missiles, you might want to protest Premier Tusk's visit. In NY he'll be at a restaurant in fucking Greenpoint on Sunday night and he'll be at the White House at 10:15 on Monday. A protest letter or any other form of support / protest counts just as much.
We're having a demonstration / town meeting and direct action at the proposed base on March 29. )BTW, you Americans should be quite happy to know that the security there is shit and wild activists have visited the site many times, planting different "objects". If those people were terrorists, which they are not, the place would have been booby trapped already.)
For more information about the issue, you can visit the English section of the website for that demo: www.m29.bzzz.net for various articles, or www.tarcza.org, although that's mostly in Polish.
Posted by akai at 03/07/2008 @ 3:28pm
(can a nation have a collective karma?) ...
Frosty, It would seem so. We're are presently paying for an on going saga of presidents and congressional members bowing to the almighty defense contractors.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/07/2008 @ 3:28pm
Thank God for Bush and the missle development that has been occurring under his watch.----Posted by CPT 03/07/2008 @ 2:39pm
How many decaying veteran's hospitals has Bush devoted such time to, CPT?
Posted by Mask at 03/07/2008 @ 3:30pm
Posted by CPT 03/07/2008 @ 3:13pm | ignore this person
living under a rock, I suppose. they even made a hollywood movie about it.
one more thing, none of the 9/11 planes were 747s.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/07/2008 @ 3:32pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=akai
how does the Polish public feel about the secret CIA prison? torture a big hit over there?
Posted by emile duBois at 03/07/2008 @ 3:34pm
What was the risk assessment that detailed that 747 would be utilized as missles against targets in the years prior to 9-11??????? I am going to assess low......
Posted by CPT 03/07/2008 @ 3:13pm | ignore this person
I'm glad you're not making such assessments for the US. The LATimes and NBC had reported that the PDI to Bush of 6 August 2001 had mentioned that bin-Laden was capable of a major strike in the US that could involve the hijacking of a plane and in July he received a warning that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles.
Then again.......25 years and figuring out the science of shooting down a satellite in a decaying orbit...yeah thats is pretty fucking good.
EDubois has already shot down most of your arguments in this point, I'll just add that 27 years covers the time from von Braun's arrival in the US to the moon landing. The "achievement" of shooting down a satellite that was only coming down at close to free-fall speed, that we knew about and that had no defensive measures isn't terribly impressive for 25 years of research.
Posted by brunowe at 03/07/2008 @ 3:44pm
North Korea, China, and Iran to name 3 are all heavily invested in achieving long range capabilities. They are not doing so because of benign interests.
only our interests are benign
Posted by emile duBois at 03/07/2008 @ 11:01pm
Liberty is right. they're all out to get us. Jesus said so and he can quote chapter and verse on that.
his view of the the world is manichean, not christian.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/07/2008 @ 11:05pm
Article does not go far enough. Oppenheimer in day between dropping of bombs on Japan noted that nukes too easy to build and war must stop. To bypass this my Father's boss (Henry Luce) brokered SECRET deals (first with Stalin) against use of nukes. Missile defense so stupid: drive it in on a yacht, get on a bus. Real story in form of play at http://www.midcoast.com/~michael1/aspyintime.htm And click-to letter at same site to Admiral Keating stopped stupid nuke exercise! Donovan
Posted by michael1 at 03/08/2008 @ 7:29pm
Posted by BRUNOWE 03/07/2008 @ 9:38pm
With what, a system that can only hit a target in rigged tests?
The fact that it works in 'rigged' tests proves to you that it doesn't elsewhere?
Posted by pontificus at 03/08/2008 @ 10:18pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/07/2008 @ 7:39pm
Actually once again LV you missed the point. We are not arguing about the creation of the system, we are arguing about the use of a system that doesn't work. Do you want something incomplete protecting you? I don't. I don't want to spend 120 billion dollars to deploy a technology that doesn't work. If you can prove to me it's reliable, go ahead and deploy it. But I don't want to pay my tax dollars to deploy a defense system that doesn't work. Why don't we take a portion of the 120 billion put it into more R&D on the missile defense system and put the other portion into schools.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/09/2008 @ 03:57am
Show me when it has shot down a missile. Not a rigged test, not a dumby, I want a missile that was fired rapidly with no prep time for the system. Prove to me it has done that, that it has worked in a near realistic situation.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/09/2008 @ 04:20am
Well, at least you guys have stopped with the "missile defense can never work" argument. I guess you will now beat the "there is no threat" mantra until a missile gets launched at us...what will you say then? I'm sure you will figure out a way to blame us. Actually, the only way to eliminate a rogue missile threat is to have an effective defense - funny how that works...
Posted by pyeatte at 03/09/2008 @ 2:11pm
Missile Defense: "Longest Running Scam" Exposed
Maybe after the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs...... maybe
Posted by Next Door at 03/09/2008 @ 4:07pm
According to Dr. Bob Bowman, who was chief of US Air Force Missile Defense, missile defense is the missing link to a First Strike. Dr. Bob Bowman thinks missiles in Poland will be very useful to shoot down surviving Russian missiles after a First Strike. Therefore the Russians will implement Launch On Warning. The terrible consequences of a mistake will be caused by the stupid Pentagon. "Bloody fools in the Pentagon", as Brigadier Harbottle said. Dr. Bob Bowman also agrees that the Pentagon (McCain?) will get disarming first-strike capability by 2011/12. The former Trident missile engineer Bob Aldridge-www.plrc.org- agrees on US First-Strike Capability and the dangers, not least because of Russian Launch On Warning. The madness has gone too far. Bob Aldridge resigned in protest for that reason. It must stop now !
Posted by claus at 03/09/2008 @ 9:19pm
Its too bad that the missile defense system works. It shoots this KVH post right out of the sky.
Posted by abell12ct at 03/10/2008 @ 11:06am
Thanks to Claus for seconding my case and providing relevant citations.
One thing that bugs me is that the US of A is apparently trying (or making a show of trying) to convince the Russians the European missile defenses are no threat to them. Russia is supposed to take the Bush administration at its word. A tall order, given its history of lies. BTW, if only the Pinicchio story were true, Dubya would be able to take out incoming missiles with his nose.
Posted by Sick Rat at 03/10/2008 @ 12:51pm
What account would that be? We've spent trillions on anti-poverty programs with little or no decrease in the poverty rate.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/08/2008 @ 5:13pm | ignore this person
Pontificus faithfully flogging truth with the only tool at his disposal: Indoctrinated Ignorance.
Feel free to take notice of which presidents blessed our nation with measurable increases in the rate of poverty while redistributing the "peoples' money" upward to their wealthy benefactors and fellow parasites.
http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/#3
How has poverty changed over time?
In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent. For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. Since then, it has risen each year, to 12.7 percent in 2004.
Posted by Oustbush at 03/10/2008 @ 2:10pm
Similar to Mr. Ciricione, most of my military service was in the Cold War, and My first job, as an 18 year old, was as a Munitions Specialists in the Air Force. I worked in the ammunition supply area, but, while supply aspect is implied by the name, it also included maintaining these munitions so they would function properly. Some basic knowledge of munitions was required. Military history is one of my interests, and the employment of munitions is a continuing theme. Any Missile defense system would face a swarm of attacking missiles, if they were properly employed. The limited system proposed for Europe would be overwhelmed by shear numbers. It is one thing to destroy a single or limited number of missiles, but Europeans could expect hundred of missiles if attacked. I do not see any reason for such an attack if there are no provocations such as useless missile defense systems or incursions into Russia's sphere of influence. This does not preclude Democracy in Eastern Europe, but using democracy as a cover for the Economic Imperialism of "Free Trade" does no help Democracy in Eastern Europe or Russia. Most disputes, in the Middle East or elsewhere, are between near neighbors, and nuclear weapons can not be used preemptively, because their use would cause collateral damage to the attacking country. Unlike conventional weapons, Nuclear Weapons are weapons of uncontrolled mass destruction and their blast , radiation, or radioactive fallout could effect countries near the target depending on their proximity to the initial explosion. Radioactive fallout can travel around the world. I am inclined to believe Syria or Iran does not want nuclear weapons because they would suffer collateral damage if they used them preemptively. The wind always changes direction in the case of Iran and the Muslim countries between that country and Israel. Israel would suffer collateral damage if it used Nuclear weapons against it's neighbors including Iran. In the case of the U.S., I have more faith in deterrence and our second strike capacity to prevent nuclear conflicts. I have zero faith in Missile or Air Defense systems that promise full protection from attack. When the former head of the Israeli company that manufactures missiles was asked, what form of missile defense was best? He replied, "Diplomacy!"
Posted by P. J. Casey at 03/10/2008 @ 2:51pm
Posted by P. J. CASEY 03/10/2008 @ 2:51pm
well said.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/11/2008 @ 12:01am
today the could spot a pimple on McCain's nose from a satellite.
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/07/2008 @ 5:55pm
...just not Osama Bin Laden.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/11/2008 @ 1:30pm
You say it shot a satellite falling from the sky. Whoopty doo, they had days to plot that satellites trajectory before they fired that missile and even then they couldn't fire off the ship because the weather was too bad.
Posted by CCCOMFO1 03/09/2008 @ 04:19am
Good point, but some of these guys you are trying to convince are impressed by the fact that their calculators can add, subtract, multiply, divide, do integrals, derivatives etc. and they can't.
So, if they can't do those basic mathematical functions, how in the hell can they understand shooting a moving smart target that may change it's trajectory based on the incoming missile trajectory, in varying winds, ie, multivariable situations going on when they can't add two and two?
You are talking waaay over their heads.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/11/2008 @ 1:42pm
BTW I found some fantastic articles…A MUST read for EVERYONE "The Hussein Dynamic" at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=171 and "Follow the Money" at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=165
The writing is BRILLIANT and goes beyond what the MSM feeds us. It was about time!!!!! Their sections for "Humor" and "Political Analysis" are FANTASTIC!!!!
http://savagepolitics.com
Posted by elsylee at 03/11/2008 @ 6:47pm