Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditIn an oversight hearing on the US missile defense program last month, Philip Coyle III, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Director of Operational Test and Evaluation in the Department of Defense from 1994-2001, spoke to the House Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs about the almost impossible position it's in when it comes to oversight of this $150 billion – and counting – weapons program: "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."
Yesterday on Capitol Hill, Lieutenant General Henry A. "Trey" Obering III, Director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), appeared before the subcommittee for the third in this series of hearings: "Oversight of Missile Defense (Part 3): Questions for the Missile Defense Agency." It seemed the General was there to illustrate Coyle's very point, as evident when Chairman John Tierney tried to gauge how realistic the testing has been for the system which purports to defend the US and Europe from ICBMs. Has the system been tested against even the most basic countermeasures and decoys that we would anticipate from a nation capable of developing such missiles?
"What I can say is we have flown against countermeasures in the past… we will continue to expand that in our future program," Gen. Obering said. "To have this conversation in a genuine fashion I need to go closed."
"I gotta tell you, General, how the American public is supposed to decide on something with this kind of enormity of expense and speculation [about] some of the capabilities is mind-boggling," Rep. Tierney said. "We over-classify so much in this country. Back when the President made the decision that he wanted to try to deploy this inoperable system in 2004, we asked for a General Accountability Office study on this – it was done. There were 50 questions addressed in the study. It came back, and the minute it came back it was classified all of a sudden. And… they don't classify stuff when it's good news around here these days…. I don't think it does a service to the American people at all or to this Congress to keep classifying everything on that basis."
"…. I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, you would not want us to transmit in an open hearing to enemies around the world – Iran and North Korea – any kind of data that they could take advantage of in trying to overcome the system for the future," Gen. Obering replied. "I know you wouldn't want to do that."
"Of course not," Rep. Tierney fired back. "That's a tremendous red herring that we're not even talking about here. What we're talking about is the capacity of the people of this country [who are] spending hundreds of billions of dollars on this system – they ought to know against what it will work and against what it won't work. And I'm not sure that information is going to affect any other country's capacity… but it should affect our decision-making process of how we spend the taxpayers money."
Indeed, in his opening statement Chairman Tierney framed the hearing as necessary for three reasons: 1) because the MDA operates the largest research and development program in the Department of Defense at a current cost of $10 billion per year, and a total cost of approximately $150 billion since the 1980's; 2) as the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service described the missile defense regime, "Numerous programs were begun, and only a very few saw completion to deployment. Technical obstacles have proven to be tenacious, and systems integration challenges have been more the norm, rather than the exception"; and 3) many preeminent experts such as Coyle "have raised very serious concerns about the effectiveness, efficiency, and even the need for our country's current missile defense efforts."
Rather than dispelling concerns over such matters as the scheduled purchase of 1200 new missile interceptors that have never demonstrated any capability against a realistic threat under realistic operational conditions, Gen. Obering intensified those concerns by simply repeating his refrain that everything is "on course." (It was as if Gen. Obering were channeling former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and offering his own version of "I don't recall.") Representative Betty McCollum was so irked that she suggested the program be housed in the Office of Faith-based Initiatives.
Coyle testified after Gen. Obering and was asked by Rep. Tierney if anything surprised him in the General's testimony. "… I was surprised at how many statements – including new statements that he made – that were certainly incomplete, misleading, or even untrue," Coyle said. "There were quite a few of them. I don't quite know where to begin. Perhaps it would be best if I provided that for the record. I was just surprised that he made a number of statements that I think are at best misleading." (Coyle is indeed furnishing the subcommittee with his account of Gen. Obering's testimony, and TheNation.com plans on obtaining that information for our readers.)
Coyle pointed specifically to Obering's claims of successful "tests," noting that the General fails to mention that the tests didn't actually involve shooting down a target. "It's a little misleading to imply that we've got the matter in hand because of such tests when they don't actually involve shooting down a target," Coyle said.
Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund and author of Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons, also testified before the subcommittee for the second time in the series of hearings.
"A lot of this boils down to what your definition of test is…. We have never done a realistic test against the kind of missile and the kind of countermeasures we could expect from even an Iran or a North Korea. And the reason we haven't done that is because we would miss," Cirincione said.
Nevertheless, The MDA continues to move forward with the funding and deployment of an unproven weapons system, and to Coyle that's a striking anomaly. "For all other US military systems we don't go into… large quantities of production until the system has been shown to be operationally effective…. It's a good policy. It helps the Congress know when it's time and when it's ready. I think the same policy ought to apply to missile defense procurement but so far it hasn't," he said.
Cirincione suggested that the MDA be disbanded and that the Joint Chiefs and commanders make a "first approximation" of the allocation of resources to missile defense as compared to other defense priorities. "If you do [this], Congress will then get recommendations… that are more complete and more balanced… than you will if you continue to have an agency that's only to promote anti-missile programs. An agency that now has a budget of some $10 billion a year – you create a very formidable advocate for these programs. If you're gonna try to get to the truth of what works and what's necessary, I think you have to take that advocate apart, and allow the influence of the rest of the services into these decisions. [The MDA] is a self-perpetuating money machine…."
Cirincione also recommended that Congress commission an independent organization such as the American Physical Society or the National Academy of Sciences to assess the anti-missile technologies.
After the hearing I spoke with Cirincione and he offered an even more pointed assessment of the anti-missile program and its advocates: "The way General Obering constantly tried to fool the Members with his test claims – unless you had been closely following the program you would have no idea that most of his claims of test successes relied on computer simulations, ground tests and flight experiments. There is something fundamentally dishonest in the way this program is spun to the Congress. It is sad that so many Members buy it."
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.
Testing......testing......Missile testing!
Posted by is is IS at 05/02/2008 @ 11:54am
Wow, $10 billion eh? That is a lot of hard earned tax dollars. Just curious but does anyone know the yearly spending of Congress's bloated pension/benefits budget? Anyone? Hello-hello? Jeez I really hate this li'l, bitty box!
Posted by meathelmet at 05/02/2008 @ 12:14pm
Complaints....Committee hearings....and endless op-eds (many from Ms vanden Heuvel)...
I guarentee the funding keeps coming.
As long as there's a sub-contractor in a Democratic Congressional district.
Posted by Mask at 05/02/2008 @ 12:24pm
I understand the research and development of missile defense systems fine. BUT DON'T SPEND THE MONEY TO DEPLOY AND INCOMPLETE SYSTEM!!! Jesus Christ would you spend 20k on a car if the car salesman told you it would only start 20% of the time. If you did you would be a moron. Keep researching keep trying but don't deploy it. It is a possible technology. If you can track weather you can track a missile. It just needs more research and more computing power to make it work.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/02/2008 @ 12:51pm
Why would this subcommittee rely on the testimony of a retired guy who's been out of the loop for 7 years?
Posted by ACook at 05/02/2008 @ 1:22pm
Posted by meathelmet at 05/2/2008
Of course, they're not going to tell you. It's all about grandstanding to make people think they're tough when we know many of them can't fight their way out of a paper bag.
Posted by ACook at 05/02/2008 @ 1:24pm
MDS eh. I heard that China has a sub that is no more than a bubble in the water , it is so silent. I also heard that one of the subs surfaced next to our fleet of ships, and that the commanders didn't know it was there. Nuclear winter anyone? Thank you kvh.
Posted by julien38 at 05/02/2008 @ 1:31pm
Posted by julien38 at 05/2/2008
You really need to stop going to those conspiracy theory websites man, they're gonna fry your old brain.
Posted by ACook at 05/02/2008 @ 1:38pm
Posted by ACook at 05/2/2008
I'm sorry...this from the woman who thinks we can invade China and win?
Posted by Mask at 05/02/2008 @ 1:39pm
I'm sorry...this from the woman who thinks we can invade China and win?
Posted by Mask at 05/2/2008
Who said anything about invading China? As I said to C3, China does not have military or economic capibility to take down the US. I never said we should invade them. And you can't blame it on Rio because we haven't seen him in a couple of days.
Posted by ACook at 05/02/2008 @ 1:53pm
Actually, Benchrest made reference to a China invasion while he was responding to one of my posts.
Posted by ACook at 05/02/2008 @ 2:03pm
After Euler said "Now is the time for an American-Sino conflict", YOU said "Actually Wolfie, the US would have no problem taking down nations like China and Iran."
I disagree. In order to "take them down" you have to own their ground. If you are not opposed to their ground being clicking hot for the next tritium enriched plutonium half life years, then have at it.
Posted by Benchrest at 05/02/2008 @ 2:36pm
Posted by Benchrest at 05/2/2008
Exactly, Bench...what does "take them down" mean, ACOOK?
LVLIB once wanted to drop "3-5 nukes" on China to "win" the Korean War....you upping the ante?
Posted by Mask at 05/02/2008 @ 2:43pm
Posted by Mask at 05/2/2008
I say drop them all. Lets destroy this little blip of a life experience we call earth and leave it to the roaches.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/02/2008 @ 4:05pm
Posted by Mask at 05/2/2008
I say drop them all. Lets destroy this little blip of a life experience we call earth and leave it to the roaches.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/2/2008
Time warped. Jesus with this new interface you would think they would at least fix the timewarp issue.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/02/2008 @ 4:05pm
LVLIB once wanted to drop "3-5 nukes" on China to "win" the Korean War....you upping the ante?
Posted by Mask at 05/2/2008
I know you love to keep playing that little ditty Mask.
However, it must be in the context of a military strategy back in the early part of the Korean War. It no longer is a viable strategy.
That does not negate the fact that China represents a very real and considerable threat to the US and the countries of the Pacific Rim. The current priority of diplomacy with the Pentagon keeping contingency war plans uptodate.
Hopefully, the Communist regime in China will one day be overthrown before they decide to let the sleeping giant roar.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/02/2008 @ 4:18pm
"what does "take them down" mean, ACOOK?"
Posted by Mask at 05/2/2008
Why such a convaluted question?
I'll talk to you some more when I get back. Gotta pick up hubby from work. See ya.
Posted by ACook at 05/02/2008 @ 4:30pm
there will be no sino us conflict. we owe them far too much money. and we have no troops. nukes are out of the question, they got nukes.
I think the argument can be made that China won the cold war.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/02/2008 @ 4:46pm
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/2/2008
What happens when that ballistic missile is sent up with countermeasures which the system still doesn't know how to deal with. Then you add in the fact that without knowing how the system is calibrated you don't know if it will start chasing it's own interceptors.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/02/2008 @ 5:49pm
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/2/2008
Oh an it's onlt 10% effective when everything is working in it's favor. That drops off dramatically in real world situations. Ballistic missiles are not going to be fired in perfect weather at a pre-determined time from an obvious location with an obvious trajectory. The missile will go up you won't know where the target is. You won't know what kind of missile it is. You won't have known it was coming. So it's only 10% in tests. Which is probably still an overestimation because they want to get funding for it so you don't tell them 3%. If they are saying 10% in ideal situations I would say probably 3-5% in real life with no countermeasures and 1-3% with countermeasures.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/02/2008 @ 5:53pm
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/2/2008
Also you're theory is not taking into account how many countermeasures are fired with it. The system is very easy to overwhelm. You fire up 3 missiles with 30 countermeasures a piece you could put up 20 but you still have less than a 1 percent chances of take out even one of the missiles let alone all 3.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/02/2008 @ 5:56pm
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/2/2008
Plus it only works if the missiles are leaving eastern Europe or Russia and heading to the East Coast. See that's the mistake you make. You think being strong on defense is throwing every dollar to every defense program you have. That's not bing strong on defense that's being stupid with money. You fund programs that work. You only deploy systems that work. If it had a 10% kill rate with countermeasures in a realistic test environment then I would say yes deploy it. A 10% kill rate with no countermeasure in an ideal test environment is not good.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/02/2008 @ 5:58pm
Uh huuum, "Is this mike working? Yes... I would like to associate myself with those remarks, with the uh err, statement of my esteemed colleague from the great State of Reason, Mr. Cccomfo1".
Posted by winyahn at 05/02/2008 @ 6:22pm
Sorry that was broken into so many posts by the way it was kind of like that situation where you think of exactly what you should of said right when you walk away. Fortunately on here I can always say it.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/02/2008 @ 6:28pm
As with Wright, context matters. The problem is graft, collusion, the commingling of DOD contracting corporate driven agendas and those of the also, super-secret Cheney administration. Downright unpatriotic, unAmerican war profiteering, aided and abetted by big media fear mongering.
From a year ago... "Lawmakers and the U.S. inspector general have accused KBR, formerly a division of Halliburton Co (NYSE: HAL - news) ., which was once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, of abusing federal rules in record-keeping on the current contract. Nearly $2 billion in overpricing has been identified by defense auditors and investigators on the contract, lawmakers said."
Posted by winyahn at 05/02/2008 @ 6:33pm
....makes no difference if it's your 3% or my ass-kicking 10%.
Any nutty party that will launch against us, will want to know with very high certainty, they will score......
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/2/2008 | ignore this person
Wow Happy...do you even attempt to enagage in any critical thought before you post such drivel?
If a salesman came to your door offering to sell you, say, for a mere $10,000, a security system for your house, that could detect intruders an "ass-kicking" 10% of the time...
...apparently you'd jump at the opportunity!
Why?
Well, according to your logic, anyone nutty enough to try to break in would be deterred by the sheer "ass-kicking"-ness of your great new system!
Posted by Lillian at 05/02/2008 @ 7:54pm
Wow...exactly how "happy" do you have to be to think that makes rational sense?!?
Posted by Lillian at 05/02/2008 @ 7:56pm
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/2/2008
Well either way they will be wiped off this earth if they launch against us I would think THAT is enough of a deterrent.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/02/2008 @ 8:33pm
Posted by Lillian at 05/2/2008
Whoa! If you got 10 of those 10,000 dollar security systems you would be set.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/02/2008 @ 8:38pm
hmmm....
$150,000,000,000
that equals $2106.51 for every man, woman and child in iran.
i think you'd get better security if you just started buying the countries you fear so much.
Friday, May 2, 2008 10:27:42 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/02/2008 @ 10:25pm
I keep saying: Place the faithful inside a locked fence, target a missile at the area and see how strong their faith is then! The tragedy of this fraud is brought home by the President cutting Medicaid funding to combat fraud, while we are raped by the defense industry on a daily basis. What a sad testimony to our country's values.
Posted by waters at 05/02/2008 @ 10:33pm
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/2/2008
What about a thief who knows for sure that if he breaks into your house he will get blown off the earth? Which is what will happen no matter what. They may launch one nuke at one city but we will turn their entire country into a glass parking lot if they do. If we are talking about deterrants the thought of complete destruction should be enough. A security system isn't going to be a deterrant it needs to be something that works. If they are willing to take the cost of firing a nuke at us then they are going to fire it no matter what system we have.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/02/2008 @ 10:51pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/2/2008
Friday, May 2, 2008 10:27:42 PM
You know, after I read that about ten times, that is a REALLY good point.
Posted by Benchrest at 05/02/2008 @ 10:56pm
Do you think China will loan us the money?
Posted by Benchrest at 05/02/2008 @ 11:00pm
We could even threaten them with a Sino-US conflict to put them in a good mood.
Posted by Benchrest at 05/02/2008 @ 11:05pm
To Mr. meathelmet go to the general accounting office website and you will get your answers.
Posted by figtree at 05/02/2008 @ 11:09pm
To Mr. meathelmet go to the general accounting office website and you will get your answers.
Posted by figtree at 05/02/2008 @ 11:09pm
Hopefully, the Communist regime in China will one day be overthrown before they decide to let the sleeping giant roar.
Posted by lvliberty1
so, you never buy chinese made products?
Friday, May 2, 2008 11:21:07 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/02/2008 @ 11:16pm
Freiheit
could you please clarify.
i'm confused as to the content of your comment.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/03/2008 @ 12:47am
This is an example of what happens when fear rules the day. Any legislator that would vote to kill this program would face ads depicting him/her as weak on defense in their next bid for reelection.
Posted by koroviev at 05/03/2008 @ 01:04am
so, you never buy chinese made products?
Friday, May 2, 2008 11:21:07 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/2/2008
Well it ‘s getting more and more difficult not to buy Chinese, unfortunately.
However, I don't buy much because I'm just not very materialistic. I don't shop at malls. When I look at my clothes tags, the non made in the USA items are mostly Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Guatemala, or Vietnam.
I had a project I tried to get going about 4 years ago to put more job training programs for youth and on some of the Indian reservations near me. I just couldn't get enough funding. Mostly I was going to implement and teach injection molding and small part hydroforming stampings. The Hydroforming I had also hoped to take to Uganda where I have ministry friends. I wanted to implement some technical training and light manufacturing to improve the lives of the people there.
It may still happen. We have an ongoing ministry effort over there with a friend who runs a center for women. Mostly those who either are coming out of prison or just single-mothers. They make artistic goods which we sell in Africa and here in the US to support them. All of the profits are kept by the Ugandan women.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/03/2008 @ 01:14am
Very impressive! You just don't hear much of this compassion from the right, Limbaugh, Cheney, etc. Actually you davits I much of the bottom-up, teach a man to fish, Horatio Alger emphasis at all. I'm in full agreement. Nice work.
Posted by winyahn at 05/03/2008 @ 05:28am
woops- tablet comupter typos... hating tis tiny#$&*@ box
Posted by winyahn at 05/03/2008 @ 05:30am
Trying to hit a bullet with a bullet. Outrageously Strangelovian!
The suzereignty of the military industrial complex, i.e. fascism, is blatantly evident, IMHO.
Posted by lewwelge at 05/03/2008 @ 08:48am
Can anyone say which actual individuals stand to receive the $150,000,000,000? Following that trail may open up the reasons why this boondoggle is being perpetrated.
I HATE TYPING IN THIS TINY SPACE. SOMEONE HIRE A PERSON WHO CAN FIX IT. AND GIVE US BACK LIMITED HTML. GOING FROM BETTER TO WORSE WAS A DUMB MOVE.
Posted by mikecope at 05/03/2008 @ 09:32am
<i>The suzereignty of the military industrial complex, i.e. fascism, is blatantly evident, IMHO.
Posted by lewwelge at 05/3/2008</i>
Nice! Working in a little bit of Middle Eastern history terms there...
As far as the efficacy of nuclear weapons...I'm fairly confident that they don't deter non-state actors, particularly not terrorist groups for whom any effective retaliation would be rather difficult because there isn't a known fixed target against which to retaliate.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/03/2008 @ 3:11pm
The tests being conducted are showing the system works compared with 10 years ago. Deployment is necessary and upgrades will follow when available. During war, you do not have the luxury of waiting until everything is perfect. If it takes two or three inerceptors to take out one missle for now, that is fine. Later it will be one for one. You never make classified performance data available - very stupid to do so. During WWII, the Manhattan Project was the most secret project around. VP Truman did not know anything about it until he assumed the presidency late in the war.
Posted by pyeatte at 05/03/2008 @ 3:17pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Thrawn
how about if, after they attack you, you attack two countries who DID NOT attack you? how much of a deterrent is that?
Posted by emile duBois at 05/03/2008 @ 3:18pm
I HATE TYPING IN THIS TINY SPACE. SOMEONE HIRE A PERSON WHO CAN FIX IT. AND GIVE US BACK LIMITED HTML. GOING FROM BETTER TO WORSE WAS A DUMB MOVE.
Posted by mikecope at 05/3/2008
YES, PLEASE restore the HTML options! Fortunately, the typing area is expandable, though it is a pain in the ass to have to expand it first to type, then again to preview.
Katrina are you paying attention?|?|? Just checking. :-) Great redesign otherwise.
Posted by jackwells at 05/03/2008 @ 6:03pm
<i>how about if, after they attack you, you attack two countries who DID NOT attack you? how much of a deterrent is that?
Posted by emile duBois at 05/3/2008</i>
It isn't, because then the attacking country never has to bear the consequences for its actions. Some have argued, on the other hand, that we should try and deter countries from GIVING nuclear, chemical or biological weapons to terrorists by threatening to respond against the countries themselves in addition to the terrorist organization. This has at least some theoretical appeal, though I worry a lot about the consequences of misidentification.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/03/2008 @ 7:04pm
All of the profits are kept by the Ugandan women.
Posted by lvliberty1
see!
THAT'S why g-d made you.
(look i didn't even write "god" ;∞]......)
Saturday, May 3, 2008 8:37:25 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/03/2008 @ 8:32pm
though I worry a lot about the consequences of misidentification.
Posted by Thrawn
yeah,
look at the current consequences that DELIBERATE misidentification has caused.
Saturday, May 3, 2008 8:40:25 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/03/2008 @ 8:35pm
What if a group commandeered a couple of missile launching bases in France or in China and fired from there....they'd be HAPPY to be counterstriked and ride huge mushrroms to their 72 virgins....what about France or China?
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/2/2008 | ignore this person
Ah yes...once again, more of that infamous 'Happy' logoc.
Hey Happy...over here...focus for just a couple of seconds. It's hard for you, I know, but consider...
If this hypothical "group" of yours hatched a plan to commandeer a missile base and fire off some missles at the US...are you really trying to make the case (as described above) that they'd be deterred by the Us possessing a missile defense system that was a "kick-ass" 10% effective?
Posted by Lillian at 05/03/2008 @ 10:33pm
The tests being conducted are showing the system works compared with 10 years ago.
Posted by pyeatte at 05/3/2008 | ignore this person
Really? Which test would those be?
You see, it's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to conduct such tests without EVERYONE knowing. Sorry, that' just the reality of the world these days. If you try to shoot off a missile, then knock it out of the sky...other countries WILL notice.
And, again...back in the land of actual reality...EVERY test to date...EVERY test...has involved perfect weather, pre-positioned anti-missile systems, a known trajectory, NO COUTERMEASURES, and, in most cases a target with a homing beacon. And, with all that in place, a 10% sucess rate!
Even if it were completely perfect, could be postioned, aimed, and fired in mere minutes (as wouyld be required in the real world), would hit the target every time, and would work perfectly in incliment weather (which will NEVER happen with existing technology)...
...it could be overwhelmed EASILY simply by firing 20 cheap decoys FIRST. While our troops reload, the real thing would be in the air...accompanied by jamming and other counter measures.
Duh!
Posted by Lillian at 05/03/2008 @ 10:44pm
Meanwhile, every country WITH nukes consideres this to be THE most single most provocative system being built.
Up to now, MAD has been an effective deterrent for EVERY country with nukes. Every country with nuclear weapons has understodd that, if you launch, you die within minutes.
With a 'workable' missile defense, mutual destruction (again...within minutes) is no longer assured for the party with the missle defense. (Which, BTW, will be EVERY nuclear country within 12 months of the technology being proven!)
It is literally, a gamble of 100's of billions of dollars (maybe trillions) for a fleetingly brief, and merely perceived, advantage.
Utter stupidity!
Posted by Lillian at 05/03/2008 @ 10:55pm
Using your `security system' stupidity, suppose all burglars know that to break into MY house, is to incur an unknown but certain % risk of getting blown to bits by a hidden `system', would he be more or less likely to just bypass my house altogether and head for one with a more conventional security setup or none at all? That, is a more appropriate way to consider the anti-missile system that is not yet a fool-proof `system'!
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/2/2008 | ignore this person
Good lord...I went back and re-read this Happy HS.
Hey Happy, you've been trying to 'support' the notion of a missile defense system as a detrrent against "...nuts like AhmaDineinYourJeans". It's pretty unclear (from your posts) whether that means other countries with nuclear weapons (N.K., China, etc.) or 'terrorists, or...what.
But seriously, pick one of your bugaboos (from the list above or whatever example you like)...
...and explain how they're going to start off thinking about using a nuke on the US...then decide to "...bypass <our> house altogether and head for one with a more conventional security setup or none at all..." because we've got a trillion $$ anti-missile system that's an "ass-kicking" 10% effective!!
LOL!!!
Posted by Lillian at 05/03/2008 @ 11:13pm
Megagigantonormonstrous VICTORY for Mr. Inevitable Obama on GUAM!
Posted by winyahn at 05/04/2008 @ 12:02am
OK... maybe, it's been a while since there was any good news.
Posted by winyahn at 05/04/2008 @ 12:07am
Also on the the anti-missile system = burglar alarm analogy ...
Considering the fact that burglars all face the possibility of meeting Mr. Glock, where the Glock possibility = your standard issue USA retaliation...
the first part of your analogy:
"suppose all burglars know that to break into MY house, is to incur an unknown but certain % risk of getting blown to bits by a hidden `system'"
overlooks what's in place already, does it not?
Posted by winyahn at 05/04/2008 @ 12:18am
great posts, lillian.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/04/2008 @ 10:19am
The problem with Lillian's posts, though, is that they're contradictory. If the system manifestly doesn't work...no one should or will see it as a serious threat.
That's not to say that the arguments are wrong; I just think they're framed wrong. I think they're most effective when you frame it as a double-bind. One of two things is true. Either (1) this system is effective, in which case all the impacts of losing MAD would come into play, or (2) it's ineffective, in which case it's just a waste.
By the way, Happy's argument is actually worse than you gave it credit for. Tests that prove it's successful HAVE to be public...else there's no deterrent to begin with.
Having built up Lillian's argument, I think it fails in part because it presupposes two extremes. Either it won't work against anyone OR it'll scare Russia. This seems like a false dichotomy. If you have a system that works (which doesn't appear to be the status quo, granted) well enough to stop, say, 2 or 3 nukes from being launched, that protects from nukes launched from, say, terrorists without scaring Russia in the least. I think the countermeasure response still beats this point, but I assume that there are can be ways to beat countermeasures (don't we, like, do this in other technologies? I'm pretty sure countermeasures aren't silver bullets...)
Posted by Thrawn at 05/04/2008 @ 7:58pm
thrawn, i suggest you read the butter battle book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Butter_Battle_Book
Sunday, May 4, 2008 8:55:32 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/04/2008 @ 8:50pm
"...it is assumed that enough testing successes are what led to continued funding..."
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/4/2008
Assumed by Whom? And on what basis?
Posted by Malcontent at 05/05/2008 @ 12:03am
...Hence the title...faith based.
Posted by Malcontent at 05/05/2008 @ 12:04am
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/4/2008
I am not arguing against continued funding I am arguing against spending the money it takes and the political disaster it causes to deploy a system that doesn't work. Very different. Like I said keep funding it because it is a useful technology to create but DON'T deploy it if it doesn't work.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/05/2008 @ 12:21am
<i>Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/4/2008 </i>
Sort of. If we have very little firepower, we don't tell our enemies that. But, if we have enough firepower to beat an enemy, why in the world would we deliberately give them the impression that we don't? In doing so, we make it more likely that they'll attack on us, and people on both sides will die needlessly. So yes, if we have technology that can beat an enemy and that we hope will deter, say, a nuclear weapons attack, yes of course we tell them so.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/05/2008 @ 12:56am
Posted by Thrawn at 05/4/2008 | ignore this person
Thrawn, I understand your point. And it's a good one. However, I'm not sure understand mine.
I think it's OBVIOUS that the system doesn't work. Every test reveals this. It should be equally obvious that seeking to spend vast sums of money we don't have, to deploy a system that is barely 10% effective, is folly.
However, in regards to the 'strategy' of pursuing a missile defense system (regardless of it's current rate of effectiveness...or ineffectiveness, as the case may be) this what is truely stupid. This is an EXTREMELY provocative act. And pointlessly so. One need only think back a few years when the Cold War was at its peak, and swap places with the Soviets on this. The hue and cry from the US hawks would be defening.
We are needlessly 'uping the ante' in a game of 'chicken' with the highest stakes imaginable. And why? To protect us from 50 year old technology (ICBMs)? To give us a momentary advantage in a Cold War that has already been won? To protect us from the Chinese? It's already been noted they have submarine-based nuclear missile platforms against which this anti-missile system would be useless. It certainly doesn't protect us from 'the terrorists' in any way.
So basically, we're demonstrating to the entire world that we, the only country to ever use nuclear weapons, are now actively pursuing a way to END the only thing (MAD) that has clearly prevented us from ever using them again.
Seriously, it would take a truely TWISTED mind to think that makes any kind of sense at all.
Posted by Lillian at 05/05/2008 @ 11:56am
I'd say it's more an article of faith on the left that missile defense systems do not and cannot ever work than it is on the right that it can and will. No-one can reasonably state with certainty that ABM systems cannot and will not ever work. It's absurd to even make that claim.
Posted by pontificus at 05/05/2008 @ 12:49pm
Assume for a moment that these systems did work. I don't think you're actually responding to the way in which they'd be important.
The purpose isn't to stop someone like China or Russia from launching significant numbers of nukes at us. This doesn't impede their second-strike capability, so it's not at all the kind of threat you describe. The actual purpose, from what I've gathered anyway, is to protect either from countries with smaller actual or potential arsenals, or to protect from a terrorist group getting WMD.
Here's the thing. As long as the NMD isn't on the scale necessary to block China and Russia's second-strike capability, I don't know where the serious dangers to it come from.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/05/2008 @ 1:30pm
I don't know where the serious dangers to it come from.
Posted by Thrawn
lack of services to your citizens........
MORE debt.......
lack of infrastructure for your citizens and businesses........
pissed off world........
Monday, May 5, 2008 1:50:37 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/05/2008 @ 1:45pm
1) Most generalized military spending isn't actually fungible into welfare spending
2) The world being angry depends on this somehow circumventing second-strike. It doesn't, so that's gone too.
3) "More debt" is an argument that could potentially be leveled against ANY spending. Granted, it does create a burden for any spending to justify itself (in ANY area of government spending), but that's not sufficient to automatically assume that all forms of spending are unjustified.
I agree with you that the status-quo NMD should not at all be deployed if it doesn't work. If it does, though, I think there's much more room for reasonable disagreement.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/05/2008 @ 4:15pm
Hmmm....
1) On the surface, this seems to almost make sense. However, spend some time considering, and it falls apart completely. There is only so much 'wealth' to be spent, whether on defense or social welfare or the 'common infrastructure' we all share. That is also true of 'borrowed' wealth...what we steal...er....borrow, from our children, to spend now. While it's true that a 'defense dollar' saved now can't automatically assumed to be available to spend on something else, it's undeniable that the more wealth we devote to defense, the less is available for ANYTHING else.
2) Hold on there Thrawn, you can't claim "that's gone too" quite so easily as that. Your premise that "The world being angry depends on this <NMD> somehow circumventing second-strike" is not only weak, it simply doesn't hold up to rational scrutiny. The Chinese are ALREADY angry. And, if you think the Russians are 'happy' with the US violating the ABM treaty we have with them, you aren't paying attention. Have you been listening to the heads of NK and Iran lately. In thumbing our nose at the rest of the world's concerns, we are essentially DRIVING our enemies together in a common cause agaisnt us. Not smart at all!
3) This one is at least something we can agree upon. "more debt" does apply to all 'borrowed' spending. However, isn't borrowing a buzillion dollars to spend deploying a missile defense that is only, to borrow a Happy phrase, a "kick-ass" 10% effective, a little like living in a bad neighborhood, being faced with a hungry family, kids who need medical attention, the repor man coming for your car, and the looming foreclosure of your home....and choosing to max out the last of your credit cards to buy raffle tickets to win a pit bull.
I mean, sometimes, borrowing money for stupid stuff, is just rather obviously...
...stupid!
Posted by Lillian at 05/05/2008 @ 9:07pm
Katrina, I just saw your performance On Larry King , you were terrific. You have gained a place in my heart of truth . Sincerely, MWiz of truthseekerforum.com
Posted by Mwiz at 05/06/2008 @ 01:13am
I mean, you're right...stupid things are stupid. If this system doesn't actually work well at all, then yes, spending money to construct it is dumb (though I'd argue that spending money to conduct further experiments with it is not). Naturally, the three responses I made were with the assumption that this would actually work. So that being said...
1) I think you're partially right here. If the defense budget consumes vast resources (which it does), it is far more difficult to spend money elsewhere (though far from impossible, see our significant nondiscretionary spending). The problem is the leap from this realization to the claim that cutting funding to a SPECIFIC program will have any effect on spending elsewhere.
2) There are two problems with this. First, the only thing you have is public reactions of leaders. The mere fact that they have to show a public face of irritation does not mean that they actually ARE irritated; this is actually something world leaders have done all the time. At the very least, insofar as this doesn't preclude second-strike capability, there's no justification for anger.
Here's the other thing, though. WHY are they mad? If you're right, this system not only doesn't block their second-strike capability, it doesn't do ANYTHING to stop them. So what possible reason could they have to be angry? Either they're irrational or they hvae some reason to think that maybe this thing works after all.
3)I mean...yes. Expenditures which don't do anything good are bad. I think I've already argued why if this works, it can be a good thing (i.e. prevent limited nuclear weapons launch, etc.)
Posted by Thrawn at 05/06/2008 @ 10:51am
What i don't understand is the secrecy. I do understand that you can't give everything to the public because it will eventually fall into the wrong hands. I don't need to know the ins and outs of the individual missiles but I atleast should know where the money is going and if it works or not. As a citizen, I just can't take their word for it. There are things the American people need to know and telling me it's none of my business ain't gonna cut it. Also, as a person of science, how is a 10% success rate proof of success. If I'm dying and the doctor tells me he/she can try this new procedure, but it only gives me a 10% chance of living, I'm gonna try it. Most likely I'll still die but sure I'm gonna try it. I'm just still trying to get over a 10% success rate as being a good thing. I don't mind paying for the research.
Question: Is this the same as the "Star Wars" program? Is this something different or did they just change the name?
Posted by k330k at 05/06/2008 @ 11:46am