Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditIn Congress last week, Representative John Tierney, Chair of the House National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, convened the latter in a series of hearings to examine the US missile defense program: "What are the Prospects, what are the Costs? Oversight of Missile Defense (Part II)." Here's the short answer – the costs are open-ended, the prospects suck, but the Bush Administration is still hell-bent on spending over $10 billion per year and compromising our national security in the process.
Three extraordinary expert witnesses were on hand to help sort through the smoke, mirrors and deception that defines the missile defense program – a weapons system Rep. Tierney pointed out that has already cost us $120 billion to $150 billion or more, and that the Congressional Budget Office estimates will cost a staggering additional $213 billion to $277 billion between now and 2025.
"In a time of economic hardship, budget deficits, and many pressing and expensive challenges – both foreign and domestic, we need to all ask ourselves… are we wisely spending the taxpayer's money here; is there a real threat we are trying to guard against; and are we actually going to have something useful at the end of the day?" Rep. Tierney asked in his opening remarks.
Want an insider's view? How about Dr. Philip Coyle III, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Director of Operational Test and Evaluation in the Department of Defense from 1994-2001, the longest-serving Director in the 20-year history of that office. He oversaw the testing and evaluation of over 200 defense acquisition systems and is currently the Senior Advisor to the Center for Defense Information.
Coyle testified that there's no operational criteria whatsoever established to determine if the system is successful; the White House, Pentagon and Missile Defense Agency (MDA) give misleading information about the performance and perceived threat; the tests that have been done don't demonstrate effectiveness against the most basic decoys and countermeasures or realistic operating conditions; the costs are "open-ended and there is no end in sight"; and the system undermines diplomacy as well as arms control and non-proliferation objectives.
"Decoys and countermeasures are the Achilles Heel of missile defense," Coyle said. "If an enemy uses decoys and countermeasures, missile defense is like shooting a hole-in-one when the hole is going 17,000 mph and the green is covered with black circles the same size as the hole. The defender doesn't know which target to aim for."
Coyle and other panelists pointed to the 1999 National Intelligence Estimate that said both North Korea and Iran would soon know how to field such decoys and countermeasures if they didn't know how to already. In addition, China and Russia were believed to already possess such technologies and were willing to sell them.
The second witness was Dr. Richard Garwin, one of the world's most eminent physicists and a longtime scholar on missile defense. After working on the creation of the hydrogen bomb, he joined the IBM Corporation in 1952 where he remains a Fellow Emeritus at the Thomas J. Watson Research Center in New York. He received the nation's highest honor for the fields of science and engineering – the National Medal of Science – in 2003. Garwin concurred completely with Coyle's testimony. He also focused on the lack of ability to operate against a realistic enemy – and misleading statements from the MDA on that issue.
"The MDA claims now to be able to handle decoys on a few ICBMs launched from Iran or North Korea but its director in a 2007 article writes, ‘And the Multiple Kill Vehicle system is a generational upgrade to the… interceptors that will allow us to handle decoys and countermeasures." Garwin noted that this system isn't available until 2015. "How does a system potentially available in 2015 allow us to ‘handle decoys and countermeasures' now? This is not reality. [We need] some assessment of the realistic performance of the system."
Garwin described just how easy it would be to thwart our $150 billion Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system (that's the one that is supposed to stop the rogue nations and terrorists, and protect Europe and America). "You don't need to know much about the defense system… [just] a dance of little balloons… and everything could be a warhead, everything could be a decoy" from the perspective of an interceptor missile.
Joining Coyle and Garwin on the panel was Dr. Lisbeth Gronlund, Senior Scientist and Co-director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, and a Research Affiliate at the Program on Science, Technology and Society at MIT. She spoke of the compelling vision President Ronald Reagan outlined for missile defense 25 years ago.
"[President Reagan's] famous ‘Star Wars vision of a ‘shield that could protect us from nuclear missiles just as a roof protects a family from the rain' was very compelling to many people. I think it's a vision that remains compelling today," she said. "However, the United States is no closer today to being able to effectively defend against long-range ballistic missiles than it was 25 years ago."
Gronlund also agreed that countermeasures and decoys are the core reason why the missile defense system will not work. She pointed out that tests of the mid- and long-range defense system in the past 5 years have actually gotten simpler, rather than more difficult. In the past there was some attempt to use at least primitive decoys. She pointed to testimony before Congress by the Director of the MDA, Lieutenant General Henry Obering III, claiming that the MDA "conducted an integrated flight test last September involving a realistic target launched from Alaska."
"The target included no countermeasures," Gronlund said. "General Obering is apparently defining a ‘realistic target' as one without countermeasures. [He] went on to say, ‘While the [GMD] System is developmental, it is available today to our leadership to meet real world threats. If MDA believes the GMD system has the ability to intercept targets with countermeasures then it should demonstrate it.... Until then, Congress should provide no more funding to purchase and deploy additional interceptors or radar."
The witnesses noted that even with the MDA designing simpler tests for the GMD system, 6 of 13 have failed since 2000, and 3 of 5 have failed since 2003. (In fact, there was a proposal for less testing because the failures might make "the shield" less of a deterrent.) Nevertheless, as Chairman Tierney pointed out, we are rushing to deploy interceptors and radar, the most recent in the Czech Republic and Poland where the citizens don't want them. The three panelists recommended a return to a "fly before you buy" policy.
"What we have with GMD and several other Missile Defense programs is a procurement program masquerading as a Research and Development program," Coyle said. "We're buying massive amounts of equipment and deploying it all over the world without knowing how effective it is." He said of the Eastern European-based system, "[It] has alienated Russia and upset the strategic balance to a degree not seen since the height of the Cold War. But for no good purpose. The proposed US system has no demonstrated operational effectiveness to defend Europe or the United States. Americans have a tendency to over-rely on technology as the first best hope to solve our problems, with Missile Defense the United States has been trying for 60 years without success. Other approaches are needed…. Diplomacy has been our most effective missile defense… effective diplomacy is hard to beat."
Gronlund also pointed to the need for diplomacy. "People talk about the monetary costs. I think while those are large, the more significant costs are those to United States security."
But facts be damned, Republican Representative Trent Franks was there demonstrating just what proponents of a sane and rational approach to missile defense are up against. He's not a member of the subcommittee, but Chairman Tierney allowed him to make a statement. Here are just some of the whoppers Franks offered:
"Since man first took up arms against himself or his fellow human beings, there has always been offensive weapons, and the effort has been to build a defensive response to those. Unfortunately, that matrix continues forward," he said. "If [an ICBM] lands in one of our major cities 100,000 people will die in a blinding moment, 4 or 500,000 more will die within a week or two or three…. We are now able to provide a limited defense against a threat from North Korea…. 26 of the last 27 flight tests for missile defense have been successful….Jihadist terrorism cannot be deterred by the threat of response and some of their leaders call Armageddon a good thing…. I believe it's always a bad bet to bet against the innovation of the American people…. Mr. Coyle mentioned [the golf analogy] – he's precisely correct. But that is also precisely what we did with the satellite…. I'm reminded of two airplanes hitting two buildings in New York, cost this economy nearly $2 trillion. And I don't even know how to begin to estimate what one ballistic missile from Iran hitting New York would [cost]…. Iran and other countries and terrorist groups may be able to come up with something that would change our concept of freedom forever."
After doing his damndest to make Rove, Cheney, Bush et. al. sound subtle, Franks thanked the panel and left, rather than sticking around to hear some smart responses.
As for 26 out of 27 tests, Gronlund said, "I think there is some confusion about short-range missile defenses and long-range missile defenses. The numbers he cited must include a lot of short-range missile defenses… citing 26 out of 27 is a deliberate muddying of these two very different technologies… it has nothing to do with [GMD] missile defense, neither does shooting down our satellite."
"Not so hard with a satellite," Garwin explained. "Because it's highly visible, highly predictable… very different from striking down a warhead that does not want to be destroyed."
"Look at how we test a nuclear armed missile to be sure they are accurate, it's close to 100 times per missile," Grunlund said. "And a missile is simple… there's nothing compared to a missile defense system where it has to react to data coming in. An honest testing program… [would involve] hundreds of tests. All the different conditions that could apply, kinds of countermeasures, angles of attack, nighttime, angles of the sun…. [We are] fielding a system that we have no evidence works. Nothing else that we do follows those rules."
"Mr. Franks spoke about terrorism, and that's something we should be concerned about," Coyle said. "But of course missile defense is useless against terrorism. It doesn't work against terrorism. So as much as we might worry about terrorism and want to do some things about it, missile defense is not the solution."
Chairman Tierney said he wished Rep. Franks had waited around to hear some of these responses. But Franks didn't need to. Because the next day he was back among his friends where Rep. Ellen Tauscher, Chair of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, held a hearing on the FY 2009 Budget Request for Missile Defense Programs.
"In six short years, a real missile defense shield has been developed, tested and fielded to protect the American people and our deployed forces," Ranking Republican Terry Everett celebrated.
"[MDA] has already fielded a limited capability to defeat a limited ballistic missile threat from rogue nations," Under Secretary of Defense, John Young, Jr. wrongly asserted in his written testimony.
"2007 was the best year we've ever had in Missile Defense," MDA Director, Lt. Gen. Obering, claimed. "One of the things I want to point out is our increasingly complex and realistic test program.... We [did] the satellite shoot down in February with just six weeks notice…. The authorities given to the Missile Defense Agency over these past several years are why we were able to move this capability out so very quickly."
Where were the opponents of this madness at this hearing? This subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) seems to accept false testimony of the missile regime without question. Since the HASC is the committee that authorizes the funds, it looks as if it will approve a budget that's much larger than the testing justifies – unless members are speaking to each other behind the scenes.
Some who attended both hearings might have been left thinking about Coyle's wise statement regarding oversight: "Congress does not have the information it needs to do oversight. If you don't have the information, and the Pentagon just says ‘trust me', you can't really do oversight," he said.
The Friends of Missile Defense might not use decoys and countermeasures to test their missile defense system, but they sure do use them when it comes to protecting their own budget and this inane course.
With reporting from Capitol Hill by Greg Kaufmann, a freelance writer residing in his disenfranchised hometown of Washington, DC.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
So the cutting edge of our defense technology is shrouded in secrecy. This surprises you? You need to get in touch with reality a little more often if it does.
Posted by marybretbrad at 04/20/2008 @ 7:09pm
Three extraordinary expert witnesses were on hand to help sort through the smoke, mirrors and deception that defines the missile defense program – a weapons system Rep. Tierney pointed out that has already cost us $120 billion to $150 billion or more, and that the Congressional Budget Office estimates will cost a staggering additional $213 billion to $277 billion between now and 2025.
If this system ever shoots down even one nuclear warhead, it will be the most cost effective $277 billion any government on the face of the earth has ever spent.
Posted by marybretbrad at 04/20/2008 @ 7:11pm
Some people who subscribe to the Nation say it can never work. Maybe we should surrender to North Korea today?
Go back and read The Nation from 1944. How many articles said the H-bomb would never work and we should surrender to the Soviet Union immediately? As to Dr. Richard Garwin, who received the National Medal of Science – in 2003, 60 years after he served his country by building the H-bomb, I'm sure there were physicists who hit thier carreer peaks in 1883 who said the H-bomb would never work.
Didn't Reagan's program, mockingly referred to as "Star Wars" by The Nation give us the Stealth Bomber and Stealth Fighter that won Desert Storm and every other conflict in the last 15 years?
Yeah, we get it. You value transfer payments to the poor more than you value national defense. Please recognize that the other 90% of the country disagrees with you.
Posted by marybretbrad at 04/20/2008 @ 7:25pm
Hey, what happened to the all important "SNL endorses Hillary" story?!?!?!.....heheh
No, seriously. Find the contractors for the Missile Defense, and find out if they are in two, three, or more Democratic Congressional districts.
If so...it'll get funded (even if not deployed), even under an Obama Administration.
Posted by Mask at 04/20/2008 @ 7:46pm
HAPPY2 04/20/2008 @ 5:38pm...
Maybe it makes them nervous... Heck... it makes me nervous, and none of those weapons are pointed at me... yet...;^)
Concern about the 'high tech' jobs is going fuel resistance and denial to what KVH is reporting.
I just don't get it at all... If we tell the world... "even try, and we'll nuke your entire country into a sheet of glass five feet thick in about ten minutes"... I don't imagine there will be much trouble on the horizon.
And we can invest all that money in 'super cool' green technology (way higher tech than anything the military gets it's hands on)... then we can make friends all over the world and do good business at the same time... and save a HUGE amount of resources that many basic infrastructures around the world are hurting for right now... including ours.
Remember New Orleans?
You can say I'm a dreamer... but in this case, if you do... you're projecting.
Posted by ttr at 04/20/2008 @ 7:49pm
And we can invest all that money in 'super cool' green technology ... then we can make friends all over the world ...
You can say I'm a dreamer... but in this case, if you do... you're projecting.
Posted by TTR 04/20/2008 @ 7:49pm
Sure! You invent the kind of green technology that cuts the price of oil to $5 per barrel and the islamists in the ME will be lining up to give you a big ol' gay kiss.
Dreamer!
Posted by marybretbrad at 04/20/2008 @ 8:06pm
Oh KVH! Let's ask Finland for help. They have all the answers!
Posted by sntauri at 04/20/2008 @ 8:08pm
Tell us Katrina, was Coyle battling his boss Bill Clinton and VP Gore on this when they were pushing a Missile Defense system.
Al Gore on Homeland Security : May 27, 2000 Focus SDI on rogue states We need to continue on a course of deeper reductions [in nuclear weapons]. But it is critical that we have the right approach in doing so. We are urging the Russians to tighten cooperation with us to protect nuclear weapons materials and stop the transfer of ballistic missile and nuclear weapons technology to rogue states. It is these states that represent the emerging threat to our country.
The administration has been working on the technology for a national missile defense system designed to protect all 50 states from a limited attack at the hands of a rogue state. We believe, however, that it is essential to do this in a way that does not destroy the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The national missile defense system that the president will review this summer is intended to meet threats from proliferant states like North Korea while preserving strategic stability.
Source: Speech at West Point Military Academy
http://www.ontheissues.org/News_SDI_Missile_Defense.htm
Pres. Clinton in Sept 2000 on the need for a Missile Defense System
Now no one suggests that NMD would ever substitute for diplomacy or for deterrence, but such a system, if it worked properly, could give us an extra dimension of insurance in a world where proliferation has complicated the task of preserving the peace. Therefore, I believe we have an obligation to determine the feasibility, the effectiveness and the impact of a national missile defense on the overall security of the United States.
Apart from the Russians, another critical diplomatic consideration in the NMD decision is the view of our NATO allies. They have all made clear that they hope the United States will pursue strategic defense in a way that preserves, not abrogates, the ABM Treaty.
If we decide to proceed with NMD deployment we must have their support, because key components of NMD would be based on their territories.
The decision I have made also gives the United States time to answer our allies' questions, and consult further on the path ahead.
Now, let me be clear. No nation can ever have a veto over American security: even if the United States and Russia cannot reach agreement; even if we cannot secure the support of our allies at first; even if we conclude that the Chinese will respond to NMD by increasing their arsenal of nuclear weapons substantially, with a corollary inevitable impact in India and then in Pakistan.
The next president may, nevertheless, decide that our interests in security in the 21st century dictate that we go forward with deployment of NMD. But we can never afford to overlook the fact that the actions and reactions of others in this increasingly interdependent world do bear on our security.
For me, the bottom line on this decision is this: Because the emerging missile threat is real, we have an obligation to pursue a missile defense system that could enhance our security. We have made progress. But we should move -- we should not move forward until we have absolute confidence that the system will work, and until we have made every reasonable diplomatic effort to minimize the cost of deployment and maximize the benefit, as I said, not only to America's security, but to the security of law-abiding nations everywhere subject to the same threat.
I am convinced that America and the world will be better off if we explore the frontiers of strategic defenses while continuing to pursue arms control, to stand with our allies and to work with Russia and others to stop the spread of deadly weapons.
I strongly believe this is the best course for the United States and, therefore, the decision I have reached today is in the best security interests of the United States.
In short, we need to move forward with realism, with steadiness and with prudence, not dismissing the threat we face or assuming we can meet it while ignoring our overall strategic environment, including the interests and concerns of our allies, friends and other nations.
A national missile defense, if deployed, should be part of a larger strategy to preserve and enhance the peace, strength and security we now enjoy and to build an even safer world.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0009/01/bn.03.html
Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/20/2008 @ 8:54pm
MARYBRETBRAD 04/20/2008 @ 8:06pm...
Please... keep your big ol' gay kiss... Making enemies to stay in business is a big waste.
Tidal, solar, hydrogen, CO2 collection, vehicle modernization, the post industrialization of America and the world... instead of fighting the islamists in the ME for just about enough oil to fuel a SUV instead of a Toyota... and we're sending money overseas just to get that Toyota...
We're not only dreaming... our 'dream' is killing 50-200 thousand of the people we went over to 'liberate' in a cakewalk... while putting costly bases in Iraq well before we are sure we can 'do the necessary work' of providing Democracy secure the place...
One tenth of that money and man power could have built a significant alternative energy infrastructure in this country which would have made the war 'even more' unnecessary.
Posted by ttr at 04/20/2008 @ 9:02pm
If this system ever shoots down even one nuclear warhead, it will be the most cost effective $277 billion any government on the face of the earth has ever spent.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/20/2008 @ 7:11pm
what about the other 2,999?
Posted by frosted zoom at 04/20/2008 @ 9:34pm
Some people who subscribe to the Nation say it can never work. Maybe we should surrender to North Korea today?
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/20/2008 @ 7:25pm
oh yeah, north korea.
big threat.
Posted by frosted zoom at 04/20/2008 @ 9:35pm
the Stealth Bomber and Stealth Fighter
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/20/2008 @ 7:25pm
ooooh, "stealth". that sounds cool. we can use them in OPERATION FORDBUILTTOUGH!
Posted by frosted zoom at 04/20/2008 @ 9:37pm
The Nation give us the Stealth Bomber and Stealth Fighter that won Desert Storm and every other conflict in the last 15 years?
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/20/2008 @ 7:25pm
you mean like iraq and afghanistan?
Posted by frosted zoom at 04/20/2008 @ 9:37pm
Yeah, we get it. You value transfer payments to the poor more than you value national defense. Please recognize that the other 90% of the country disagrees with you.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/20/2008 @ 7:25pm
crush! KILL! DESTROY!
Posted by frosted zoom at 04/20/2008 @ 9:38pm
Sure! You invent the kind of green technology that cuts the price of oil to $5 per barrel and the islamists in the ME will be lining up to give you a big ol' gay kiss.
Dreamer!
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/20/2008 @ 8:06pm
one of the stupidest posts ever.
Posted by frosted zoom at 04/20/2008 @ 9:40pm
Oh KVH! Let's ask Finland for help. They have all the answers!
Posted by SNTAURI 04/20/2008 @ 8:08pm
who's attacking finland?
Posted by frosted zoom at 04/20/2008 @ 9:40pm
Posted by FROSTED ZOOM 04/20/2008 @ 9:40pm
Frosty, it must be terribly difficult to live life hating so much (ie militaries) and still be a pacifist. Somewhere, somehow, someway, that anger will have to be released. I don't think it will be pretty.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/20/2008 @ 9:49pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/20/2008 @ 9:49pm
"To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men."---Titus 3:2
Posted by Mask at 04/20/2008 @ 10:03pm
LVLIBERTY1 04/20/2008 @ 8:54pm...
You quoted President Clinton...
-No nation can ever have a veto over American security-
My, oh my... how times change...
It took only three years to go from "big brother" of the world...
to... big menace to the world.
Posted by ttr at 04/20/2008 @ 10:15pm
Frosty, it must be terribly difficult to live life hating so much (ie militaries) and still be a pacifist. Somewhere, somehow, someway, that anger will have to be released. I don't think it will be pretty.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/20/2008 @ 9:49pm
grrrrrrr.
i'm gonna take that fuckin' broccoli and.........
COOK IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by frosted zoom at 04/20/2008 @ 10:40pm
Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.
You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.
wow.
hey, libs. god is telling me to put you on ignore.
Posted by frosted zoom at 04/20/2008 @ 10:43pm
Frosty, it must be terribly difficult to live life hating so much (ie militaries) and still be a pacifist. Somewhere, somehow, someway, that anger will have to be released. I don't think it will be pretty.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/20/2008 @ 9:49pm
so,
life = militaries?
don't you think that's a little oxymoronic?
Posted by frosted zoom at 04/20/2008 @ 10:45pm
"In a time of economic hardship, budget deficits, and many pressing and expensive challenges – both foreign and domestic, we need to all ask ourselves… are we wisely spending the taxpayer's money here; is there a real threat we are trying to guard against; and are we actually going to have something useful at the end of the day?" Rep. Tierney asked in his opening remarks.
Well, I guess there's a first for everything...KVH is concerned about the wise expenditure of the taxpayer's money. It's a step in the right direction, now let's apply it to social programs.
Posted by Person at 04/20/2008 @ 10:56pm
Dr. Lisbeth Gronlund, Senior Scientist and Co-director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, and a Research Affiliate at the Program on Science, Technology and Society at MIT. She spoke of the compelling vision President Ronald Reagan outlined for missile defense 25 years ago.
"[President Reagan's] famous ‘Star Wars vision of a ‘shield that could protect us from nuclear missiles just as a roof protects a family from the rain' was very compelling to many people. I think it's a vision that remains compelling today," she said. "However, the United States is no closer today to being able to effectively defend against long-range ballistic missiles than it was 25 years ago."
I went to lame-brained UVA, not MIT, and even I know this misses the point of the Star Wars campaign. Whether Star Wars would technically work or not was never the point. The point was to bankrupt and defeat the Evil Empire of the USSR. To this end, Star Wars was a smashing success and more than achieved it's goals. A commy country like the Soviet Union doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of keeping up with our spending power. We won in huge and they lost huge, and not a single missle was fired. Now, while that undoubtedly stubs KVH's feelings, it's nonetheless an amazing testament to America's power and Ronald Regan's brilliance.
Posted by Person at 04/20/2008 @ 11:07pm
PERSON 04/20/2008 @ 11:07pm...
-Star Wars was a smashing success and more than achieved it's goals.-
So... Star wars single handedly brought down the USSR?
Or... was it 40 years of cumulative cold war tactics finally adding up?
I think you are simplifying the situation to fit the scenario you'd like to believe... just like I always do...;^)
Posted by ttr at 04/20/2008 @ 11:33pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/20/2008 @ 9:49pm
i understand the presence of violence in people's hearts and thus, the insanity of war.
i understand the need to defend oneself against the madness of greed.
however, i choose not to glorify these actions, because frankly, i can not fathom wanting to kill someone, and i wonder what gains can be so compelling as to lead someone to such evil.
i do not hate the military. i am glad the nazi's were defeated. (shout out to godwin!). thanks, guys.
it seems like a few muck it up for the rest of us, and for some reason, these morons get people's attention and through lies and coercion convince them to do some messed up shit.
i am befuddled by the stupidity of human priorities.
life is fun. sharing is fun. i'm truly confused as to why humans are so incapable of peace.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/21/2008 @ 01:39am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/20/2008 @ 9:49pm
oh yeah, i almost forgot:
here's the real reason god gave us hearts and brains.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/21/2008 @ 01:52am
a standing army, the bane of liberty -- elbridge gerry
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/21/2008 @ 02:22am
""But of course missile defense is useless against terrorism."
This is complete America-hating, cut and run nonsense.
We haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil in almost 7 years.
What more proof could you liberal pussies need?
Posted by drhammer at 04/21/2008 @ 08:21am
Posted by TTR 04/20/2008 @ 11:33pm | ignore this person
I was really speaking to this:
...she said. "However, the United States is no closer today to being able to effectively defend against long-range ballistic missiles than it was 25 years ago."
That wasn't the point 25 years ago and it probably isn't the point today. It should rather be phrased, "However, the United States is just as capable today of driving its enemies into bankruptcy and thus accelerating their collapse as it was 25 years ago".
Posted by Person at 04/21/2008 @ 09:28am
one of the stupidest posts ever.
Posted by FROSTED ZOOM 04/20/2008 @ 9:40pm
You are dead wrong on this one.
I didn't realize it at the time, but this may be one of my most insightful posts ever.
If we do develop the kind of green technology that TTR is talking about, what is going to happen to the eoconomies of Iraq, Iran, Russia, Venezula, and to a much lesser extent CANADA? They are going to turn into basket cases. They have one valueable natural resource, oil, and it will become virtually worthless. And when the populations spiral into poverty, who do you think they are going to blame?
If you want to develop green technology and destroy the eocomonies of the ME, you're going to need to spend twice as much on national defense.
(Why do you think Dubai is investing hundreds of billons of thier oil revenue to build a financial center?)
Posted by marybretbrad at 04/21/2008 @ 09:33am
A general question: Why do our enemies / so-called friends get so upset over missile defense? They appear to view it as an act of aggression. Do you believe it's an act of aggression? And if so, why?
Posted by Person at 04/21/2008 @ 09:33am
And when the populations spiral into poverty, who do you think they are going to blame?
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/21/2008 @ 09:33am
What am I talking about? I'm sure we can count on Europe to defend us.
NOT!
Posted by marybretbrad at 04/21/2008 @ 09:34am
here's the real reason god gave us hearts and brains.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/21/2008 @ 01:52am
Actually, He gave us hearts and brains to live, and created us in His image with a soul, so that we might worship Him and give Him glory.
I'll fly away to heaven is a reward for obedience. Not why we have our biological construction.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/21/2008 @ 09:39am
however, i choose not to glorify these actions, because frankly, i can not fathom wanting to kill someone, and i wonder what gains can be so compelling as to lead someone to such evil.
i am befuddled by the stupidity of human priorities.
life is fun. sharing is fun. i'm truly confused as to why humans are so incapable of peace.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/21/2008 @ 01:39am
Neither can I fathom wanting to kill someone. In general, no one who serves in the military wants to kill anyone. Nor do supporters of the war on terror, like myself, want to kill anyone. Recognizing the need to confront evil, as even you do with examples like the Nazi's does not create a moral equivalency of wanting to kill.
The gain is an attempt to secure peace.
Why humans are incapable of peace is simple enough. It is the sin nature resident in mankind. Without the transforming power of a renewed mind and spirit in Christ, that nature remains dominant.
That does not mean that all non Christians will kill, or that all Christians cannot kill. It means the capacity of evil is resident in all mankind (even Christians).
Now a perpetual cynic like Mask will try and suggest that we do want to kill. But that again speaks to either an ignorance or a willful avoidance of the facts. Confronting evil is a necessity, not a pleasure.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/21/2008 @ 09:48am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/21/2008 @ 09:33am | ignore this person
I wouldn't get too exercised over this prospect. IF "green" energy were the panacea as it's touted, this MIGHT be theoretically plausable. For instance, the coal industry, and thus coal communities, have taken a serious hit from more efficient sources of energy such as nuclear and diesel. If more nuclear power plants were allowed, the hit would be even greater. However, "green" energy is very far from being a panacea. Just as serious flaws are exposed with one "green" energy, yet another "green" idea is born. It will be a long, long, long time before a "green" energy is developed that's competitive with fossile fuels.
Posted by Person at 04/21/2008 @ 09:49am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/21/2008 @ 09:48am | ignore this person
Well put.
Posted by Person at 04/21/2008 @ 09:55am
Neither can I fathom wanting to kill someone.
Now a perpetual cynic like Mask will try and suggest that we do want to kill. But that again speaks to either an ignorance or a willful avoidance of the facts. Confronting evil is a necessity, not a pleasure.----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/21/2008 @ 09:48am
Hmmmm?
"3-5 nuclear weapons against China and a threat to Russia to keep in line or they would have been next...."---Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/10/2007 @ 4:32pm
"Tell the military to take off their safety's, find some "Patton" style leaders; also, think Dresden; tell the president, his advisors, and the military staff to quit worrying about public opinion and just destroy every enemy-no prisoners."----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/21/2007 @ 10:50am
Yeah, you're really torn-up inside about it, aren't ya?...heheh
Posted by Mask at 04/21/2008 @ 10:10am
Posted by PERSON 04/21/2008 @ 09:49am
Excellent points. If a process to harness Cold Fusions were discovered tomorrow, it would be at least a decade before a serious amount of electricity could be produced by it.
But decades are the planning unit for militaries even if 95% of their engagements are a result of reacting to situations that devlop within weeks or months.
Posted by marybretbrad at 04/21/2008 @ 10:12am
Remember Aesop's fable about the Boar and the Fox. The Fox was mocking the boar for sharpening his tusks on a tree when there was no enemy present. The boar replied, "There will be no time for that when the enemy does appear." Moral: The surest path to peace is to always be prepared for war.
Posted by marybretbrad at 04/21/2008 @ 10:15am
No surprise that you still don't understand the difference. Or your cynicism is so great that you now lack the capacity to recognize the difference.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/21/2008 @ 10:19am
My memory is holding up pretty well:
http://www.aesopfables.com/cgi/aesop1.cgi?srch&fabl/TheWildBoarandtheFox
The Wild Boar and the Fox
A WILD BOAR stood under a tree and rubbed his tusks against the trunk. A Fox passing by asked him why he thus sharpened his teeth when there was no danger threatening from either huntsman or hound. He replied, "I do it advisedly; for it would never do to have to sharpen my weapons just at the time I ought to be using them."
Posted by marybretbrad at 04/21/2008 @ 10:19am
Wow, the misconceptions that can build up when I'm not looking.
First, this is old news on missile defense. I blogged [strategos.wordpress.com] on this set of hearings four days ago. The boondoggle angle is already well worked over too. What Katrina and many other people unfamiliar with military and strategic debates are overlooking is the long-term implications of the "defense" systems being constructed right now. Read the post for a full layout on this, but I'll just say here that the real capacities of what they're building now have little to do with missile defense as most people conceive of it.
Now on to some other misconceptions that need dismissing:
1) Rogue states might nuke the U.S. if they ever manage to get nukes and long-range missiles. No rogue state is going to launch a nuclear missile at the U.S. To do so is to commit national suicide, as no one would balk at a U.S. nuclear counter-strike that would be guaranteed to destroy any potential target completely. This is the doctrine that our entire strategic nuclear force has been based on for fifty years, and quite successfully too. It works because we are not the only country with this power (Russia and China both clearly have it, and lesser nuclear states like Britain and France have enough to ensure that the big boys think twice.) The deliberate launch scenario by a rogue state is the least likely of all possible problems and the only one that the system we are buying will counter. This is the obvious problem that Rep. Tierney's hearing were pointing out.
2) There might be an unauthorized launch, either by rebels or terrorists, from another nuclear state. This has been with us as a problem since the beginning of the ICBM race. It is also a highly unlikely scenario, since we and all other nuclear powers have fifty years of command and control systems experience that have been evolved to prevent exactly that possibility. We also share this expertise freely (as we rightly should) with other states in order to help them keep their nukes secure. States have a vested interest in doing this too: remember, any state that allows an "unauthorized" launch will be blamed anyway and likely suffer the same fate as if they had done it deliberately. All nuclear states secure their nukes in such ways that they cannot be used by others. See the book Managing Nuclear Operations if you really want the full picture of how this is done.
3) If it stops even one missile it's worth it. So it would seem, until you think through the actual application of that idea. The simple fact is that even a lone missile launch (the unlikeliest of all scenarios, since the nature of C&C is that anyone doing so would likely have control of several missiles) would likely overwhelm the defense that is being proposed for this pricetag. All modern ICBMs (ours and those of all other acknowledged nuclear states) currently can produce dozens of decoys and other counter-measures that drastically reduce the odds of an interceptor hitting the actual warhead (or, more accurately, warheads, since most missiles now in arsenals are MIRVs and have several warheads per missile.) In any credible attack scenario, the likelihood that an individual warhead makes it through is well above 50% (I've actually run scenarios on this myself) and the odds that one will get through add up to a virtual certainty. That means that we're getting into pretty pointless territory here because, as the say, "it only takes one." The odds are so bad that it seems silly that anyone can even suggest this as a credible argument.
4) Missile defense is part of the "War on Terror". This has to be the stupidest contention that I've ever heard uttered in connection with missile defense. Terrorists will never get their hands on a working ICBM: the C&C is too hard to overcome on these large-scale systems (built for centralized control.) The real terrorist threat is and has always been with smaller systems, ones that a missile defense system are utterly useless against. Tactical nukes could easily be transferred to terrorists, probably by lower-level military personnel where such things exist (almost entirely the U.S., Russia, and some of the former Soviet republics) but they would be delivered "by hand" (i.e., smuggled in and used as super-sized car/truck bombs) rather than launched by any means. The whole connection to terrorism is a red herring when it comes to missile defense.
Those are just the four that grabbed me right off the top. This is one of those questions where no one is listening to what real strategists are saying and are instead captivated by pretty propaganda that promises what can never be. Read my "Raining from the Heavens" post and see what the real implications of this nonsense are.
Posted by Stwriley at 04/21/2008 @ 10:37am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/20/2008 @ 7:25pm
Didn't Reagan's program, mockingly referred to as "Star Wars" by The Nation give us the Stealth Bomber and Stealth Fighter that won Desert Storm and every other conflict in the last 15 years?
No, actually. Both of these planes date back to the Carter administration and thus pre-date the Reagan "Star Wars" program. Nor were their stealth or other technologies developed by that program (much of the stealth theory actually dates back to the early 1960's.) It is also a misconception that either of these planes were instrumental in winning in Gulf War I or otherwise, as they have not. The big bombing aircraft in Gulf I was the good old B-52 and most fighter-bomber sorties were not being run by F-117's but by more standard attack aircraft.
Posted by Stwriley at 04/21/2008 @ 10:57am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/21/2008 @ 10:19am
Come on, Larry. Time after timee, we've shown your affinity for war. Your easy dismissal of "collateral damage", as well as your casual theory of nuclear bombardment for the Korean War and "thinking Dresden" as a means of "winning" the "War on Terror".
If you ever really did come out and give all the specifics of how YOU would "fight terrorism"...it'd make Curtis LeMay sound like Mohandas Gandhi.
And I think some of us, who've gleans bits and pieces of your military career in 'Nam...have an inkling of why you ARE so lackadaisical when it comes to "total war".
Posted by Mask at 04/21/2008 @ 11:17am
Posted by STWRILEY 04/21/2008 @ 10:57am
True. In fact, the flying wing design (similar to the B-2 "Spirit") was used by Jack Northrop in the late 1940s!
Posted by Mask at 04/21/2008 @ 11:19am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/21/2008 @ 10:15am | ignore this person
I totally agree with Aesop, the board was wise. And I don't think it's wrong to pursue alternate or "green" sources of energy. The energy debate frustrates me on several levels and for several different reasons. I do not believe the stated motives of the "green" movement. I think it has very little, if anything, to do with energy independence. We could become much more energy independent by drilling our own oil in America. But we all know the "green's" opposition to that idea. Or the fear that we're going to run out of oil. Says who? For every report you can find about "Peak Oil" you can find another that says it's baloney. I guess I'll believe it when I see it.
The "green" movement fueling (no pun intended) this debate is driven by something entirely different. It's not the protection of the American way of life, or our continued prosperity. It's not based on national security concerns. It's not a sense of saving oil for future generations. It's none of these things at all. Instead, it's one of the fundamental tenents of the religion of environmentalism.
Posted by Person at 04/21/2008 @ 12:12pm
I know this is getting off the subject, but I live in NC and we're starting to get media ads from Hillary and Obama. I heard one from Obama today that blew my mind. He was listing all the great things he'd do as President to improve the lives of the middle class. The one that really stuck out was that he'd impose a "penalty" on "windfall profits" from "Big Oil". What on God's green earth is he saying?! There's absolutely nothing whatsoever positive that would come from this nonsense. I can't even understand what he'd hope to achieve. If he thinks it'd lower prices at the pump he's ignorant beyond belief. It'd probably do the exact opposite. If he's doing it just to "punish" "Big Oil", to make them share the pain of the middle class, then he's spiteful, vindictive AND ignorant beyond belief.
I suspect he's shamelessly pandering to what he perceives middle class North Carolina democrats to be. Because surely to God he's not all of the above.
Posted by Person at 04/21/2008 @ 12:28pm
I know this is getting off the subject, but I live in NC and we're starting to get media ads from Hillary and Obama. I heard one from Obama today that blew my mind. He was listing all the great things he'd do as President to improve the lives of the middle class. The one that really stuck out was that he'd impose a "penalty" on "windfall profits" from "Big Oil". What on God's green earth is he saying?! There's absolutely nothing whatsoever positive that would come from this nonsense. I can't even understand what he'd hope to achieve. If he thinks it'd lower prices at the pump he's ignorant beyond belief. It'd probably do the exact opposite. If he's doing it just to "punish" "Big Oil", to make them share the pain of the middle class, then he's spiteful, vindictive AND ignorant beyond belief.
I suspect he's shamelessly pandering to what he perceives middle class North Carolina democrats to be. Because surely to God he's not all of the above.
Posted by Person at 04/21/2008 @ 12:29pm
I know this is getting off the subject, but I live in NC and we're starting to get media ads from Hillary and Obama. I heard one from Obama today that blew my mind. He was listing all the great things he'd do as President to improve the lives of the middle class. The one that really stuck out was that he'd impose a "penalty" on "windfall profits" from "Big Oil". What on God's green earth is he saying?! There's absolutely nothing whatsoever positive that would come from this nonsense. I can't even understand what he'd hope to achieve. If he thinks it'd lower prices at the pump he's ignorant beyond belief. It'd probably do the exact opposite. If he's doing it just to "punish" "Big Oil", to make them share the pain of the middle class, then he's spiteful, vindictive AND ignorant beyond belief.
I suspect he's shamelessly pandering to what he perceives middle class North Carolina democrats to be. Because surely to God he's not all of the above.
Posted by Person at 04/21/2008 @ 12:30pm
I am so sorry. I'm having technical difficulties.
Posted by Person at 04/21/2008 @ 12:32pm
Posted by MASK 04/21/2008 @ 11:17am
It's getting a little old in repeating but you just don't have a clue. When it comes to the military, you are as anti-military as some of the most hardcore leftists here. I have never seen you post one positive thing about our military.
When people like myself reference overwhelming tactics in the use of our military force and weaponry, that is for the purpose of demolishing the enemy so as to secure the peace and reduce the casualties to our own forces. It has nothing whatsoever to do with pleasure in war. Wars are not fought to be tea parties. They are brutal and deadly and you either win and live, or be defeated and die.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/21/2008 @ 1:59pm
Instead, it's one of the fundamental tenents of the religion of environmentalism.----Posted by PERSON 04/21/2008 @ 12:12pm
Interesting your agreement with MARYBRET on "environmentalism being a religion"...he HAS said as much. Even compared it's "apocalyptic" nature to the apocaplyptic nature of fundamentalist Christianity....and neither favorably.
In fact, agree that they are "bogus".
Posted by Mask at 04/21/2008 @ 2:48pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/21/2008 @ 1:59pm
No, LVLIB, I just haven't said what YOU want said about the military.
I support it and agree that we CANNOT allow ourselves to listen to the false flag and "utopianism" of the Hard Left who think we can go back to a pre-WW-2 defense stature or "turn the Pentagon into public housing".
The military does the best job it can, every time...IF they have the right civilian leadership and a policy and defense strategy based on facts and logic...and not ideology and the HARD RIGHT's "utopianism", now called "neo-conservatism".
YOU, my friend, with your "Bomb the hell out of them, let 'Allah'..haha...sort them out" and "let's roll the tanks into Teheran" (and don't try to deny that's not the REAL agenda you'd push...again, you've made yourself quite clear on this board)...
is the kind of stuff that shows you probably did NOT see combat in Vietnam (as you've alluded to) and therefore, late in life, are now trying to be "Rambo" (with a solid King James and CARM.org set as Favorites notebook comp on your hips) in THIS war....probably to compensate for the fact that you spent most of your time back in Saigon, sipping beers and listening to "Me love you long time, Joe".
Yeah...I said it. But been theorizing about that for a long time and willing to roll the dice that it's pretty accurate.
Mostly based on the fact that THE most ardent "rah-rah" guys for a war...are usually the guys who fought in one the LEAST. Either the guys like Bush who flew "combat missions over Texas"...or Cheney and his deferments....or Limbaugh....or even a corpsman or mail delivery guy who "slugged it out" with occasional visits to a forward fire base and then high-tailed it back to Saigon.
Posted by Mask at 04/21/2008 @ 2:58pm
A general question: Why do our enemies / so-called friends get so upset over missile defense? They appear to view it as an act of aggression. Do you believe it's an act of aggression? And if so, why?
Posted by PERSON 04/21/2008 @ 09:33am | ignore this person
Any takers?
Posted by Person at 04/21/2008 @ 6:26pm
Posted by MASK 04/21/2008 @ 2:58pm
I will just say that you are wrong again. Did I see as much combat as grunts on the ground. no...Nor was I stationed in Saigon. But I saw combat, not just in Nam but elsewhere also. Nam and actions elsewhere were so much more than most of you will ever probably know or understand.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/21/2008 @ 11:03pm
It was interesting that a former head of the Israeli company producing their Missile Defense System also remarked that Diplomacy was the best way to prevent a missile attack. The Israelis are also infected by the same Industrial side of the military/industrial complex that infects the Pentagon. This is thanks to Richard Perle & Company from the AEI. Basically, they were sucking up to Congress in order to gain support for Israel. Now they are wasting Europe"s on a failed Missile Defense System.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 04/22/2008 @ 3:30pm
I have a simple proposal for all the dittoheads who are so confident in SDI. Gather them all together, along with Pentagon procurement people and the companies that are selling us this snake oil, and place them in a target area as a test missile is launched. For good measure, let the test missile employ the countermeasures that have disappeared from the tests. For further good measure, surround the area with an electric fence so they can't have any second thoughts!
Posted by waters at 04/22/2008 @ 4:47pm
To those who accuse all persons who criticize wasteful military spending as wanting to surrender and the like, we should keep in mind what Eisenhower said:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
"This world in arms in not spending money alone.
"It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
"The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
"It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
"It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.
"It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
"We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.
"We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
"This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
"This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
Eisenhower also warned us to beware the military-industrial complex. We see the results today in the many military boondoggles, of which missile "defense" is only one. Congresspersons have bring home the bacon to their districts and take the dollars from the defense industry for their campaigns. We should also remember another purpose of military spending. In Orwell's 1984 military spending was designed to use up excess production to keep the people accepting wartime austerity. In our system military spending and tax cuts are designed to prevent spending on social programs, to "starve the beast." Reagan deliberately created large deficits by slashing taxes and drastically increasing military spending. It had the desired result: Congress had to go after social programs with a meat ax. The American people should force Congress to stop funding useless weapons systems.
We should also keep in mind that a "missile defense" system is a first-strike weapon. If a country is invulnerable to attack it may attack others with impunity. This is why missile defense system were banned under several treaties.
Star Wars had nothing to do with Stealth Bombers or bringing us useful technology. We've wasted many billions on a system that should never be built even if it can indeed work, and probably will never work.
Posted by cholzhauer at 04/22/2008 @ 4:57pm
Wow, I can't believe the right-wing, BushCo, "Reagan and North weren't traitors for selling arms to IRAN!", stupid defense waste lovers who make comments as if they had two brain cells to rub together. "Star Wars" and the current systems are money flushed down the Bush buddy hole. As a Vietnam combat vet, I say talk, don't back down from the fundamental principles of the US which of course are not reflected by BushCo in the least. Impeach, convict, hang those responsible for the egregious state of America and the war profiteers who enrich them.
Posted by thekidde at 04/22/2008 @ 6:22pm
I just read the article Katrina, and would like to applaud your efforts on this. I've also never seen our neocon chairborune rangers in such a tizzy fit.
I don't know why they like to blow shit up and kill so much....maybe too much red meat, steroids or just flat a lack of intelligence. They'll trust some bought off asshole who wishes to funnel billions of tax dollars down the toilet in the form of graft. Corruption within their ranks is completely forgiveable no matter how blatant and the pentagon is next to Godliness to them if not exceeding Godliness.
It's kind of like a blind boxer thinking he will be able to win by throwing "blind punches" to block his enemies punches. Sure, he might get lucky and hit the incoming glove one out of 20 times, but the remaining 19 times he is hit so damned hard he's KO'd before he gets to land his one blocking punch.
As was mentioned in the article, the best missile defense system is diplomacy which the Bush administration and the neocons don't believe in similar to the evil empire in Star Wars.
Most of the defenders of this missile systm don't have much of a mathematical or scientific background to spew forth their BS. They have no understanding of changing trajectories due to random flight patterns generated by incoming missile control systems, intended and non-intended electromagnetic interference, atmoshperics and a whole host of other problems that pop their ugly heads up when taking on a system like this.
Still, they feel the need to ramble on about spending billions on something they, congress, and the American people know nothing about and expect us to take the Pentgon's word for it....kind of like the Pentagon's word through their media generals on their pay roll.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/23/2008 @ 10:25am
We haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil in almost 7 years.
this cute. the all purpose justification. torture? we haven't had a terrorist attack... useless missile defense? we haven't... illegal eavesdropping? we haven't. braindead posters such as Mary? well we haven't ....
Posted by emile duBois at 04/25/2008 @ 11:25am
why is this blog all in italics?
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/26/2008 @ 12:56am
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=frosty%20zoom
must be on your end. no italics here for me.
the new design is atrocious.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/26/2008 @ 09:57am
Not sure what browser you were using frosty, but it is all in italics in Opera too.
I am beginning to suspect MBB is right. That we are being discouraged from our, sometimes excessive, blogging.
Save hard drive space, on their server? Less crap to read through, to edit out offensive posts?
Big software changes never work out right the first time, Hopefully, someone is working on a bug list and we'll adjust to the skinny column, odd font thing.
Posted by Malcontent at 04/26/2008 @ 6:14pm