Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditVacationing on Kauai, the westernmost of the Hawaiian islands, the only question most tourists ask is which beach to go to today – but visitors and locals alike were startled by Thursday's news from Washington: a North Korean missile is now aimed at Hawaii, and Hawaii's missile defenses are being fortified.
Does that mean it's time to cancel the luau and get on the first plane home?
A Japanese newspaper reported that North Korea may – repeat may – fire "its most advanced ballistic missile toward Hawaii around July 4." Secretary of Defense Robert Gates then announced moving ground-based "interceptor" rockets to Hawaii, and activating the SBX – Sea-Based X-Band Radar, a $900 million, 280 foot high seagoing dome that looks like the world's biggest floating golf ball. It rides on a self-propelled oil platform, and is based at Pearl Harbor.
According to the Honolulu Advertiser, the SBX "was spotted heading out to sea on Wednesday."
The plan is that the SBX will find the incoming North Korean missile, and then the THAAD -- Terminal High Altitude Area Defense -- will shoot it down. Hawaii will remain safe.
The whole scenario is unlikely, to put it mildly. Start with the North Korean missile: when it was tested in 2006, the rocket fell into the Pacific a few seconds after launch. In a second test in April, the missile made it past liftoff, but hit the Pacific after 2,000 miles, less than half the distance to Hawaii.
So the snorkelers at Poipu are probably okay, at least for now.
More important, the notion that North Korea would attack the US is absurd, even in the eyes of old-line hawks. "It would justify massive retaliation and bring an end to the regime," Philip Coyle of the Center for Defense Information told the Advertiser. "North Korea has done a lot of crazy things, but they are not suicidal."
Even Heritage Foundation expert Bruce Klingner said it was misleading to report that North Korean missiles would be launched toward Hawaii. He suggested the North Korean target area should be described as "open water toward the east."
Finally, if the US did attempt to shoot down a North Korean missile, it could easily fail. That would be what diplomats call "an embarrassment." The THAAD was designed to shoot down Scud-type missiles, and according to the L.A. Times has never been tested on long range rockets.
Nevertheless champagne corks are probably popping at the offices of the contractors for the THAAD. For the biggest smiles, look to prime contractor Lockheed Martin, and then subcontractors Raytheon, Boeing, Aerojet, Rocketdyne, and Honeywell. The system is expected to cost tens of billions before it is declared obsolete.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
posted by Jon Wiener on 06/19/2009 @ 8:28pm – in part:
"More important, the notion that North Korea would attack the US is absurd, even in the eyes of old-line hawks."
But what if China, the only thing keeping Nor Kor from falling into extinction, is backing their play to test Obama's willingness to respond? If they fire a missile that comes anywhere near Hawaii and Obama does not respond with a covey of missiles to destroy their nuclear facility, duck and cover boys.
Posted by Incoming at 06/19/2009 @ 9:01pm
This all makes for some fine comedy.
Incompetent N. Korean engineering and leadership versus the mighty U.S. missile shield.
Wake me when it's over.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/19/2009 @ 9:58pm
Actually, could be a tooth and nail battle when you throw in U.S. "leadership".
Not a knock on Obama per se, just the entire corrupt military-congressional-entertainment-"security" complex.
I'm about to pop me some corn.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/19/2009 @ 10:01pm
"If the US did attempt to shoot down a North Korean missile, it could easily fail."
posted by Jon Wiener on 06/19/2009 @ 8:28pm
The Navy destroyed a satellite by hitting it's fuel cell with a Standard Missle-1.
I will not bore you with the numbing velocities involved.
The LA Times may not be the best source for that kind of information.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/19/2009 @ 10:43pm
How many Raptors is this bullsh*t going to sell?
Posted by koroviev at 06/19/2009 @ 10:56pm
"How many Raptors is this bullsh*t going to sell"
You must be a slow news reader, more are already financed per todays news reguardless of what you think!
"Lockheed's F-22 Raptor fighter received a surprise boost from House lawmakers who want to add $369 million to the Pentagon's budget to ensure continued production of the Air Force's most advanced jet."
Posted by BigPasture at 06/20/2009 @ 12:47am
Posted by Benchrest at 06/19/2009 @ 10:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yep, and in trials they easily shot down one of our missles over the pacific with their anti-missle many months ago.
Posted by BigPasture at 06/20/2009 @ 12:50am
Funny, how N. Korea continually thumbs its nose just as easily at the Obamanation that makes desolation as they do at the U.N. and anyone else!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/20/2009 @ 12:52am
Just what Doc Cheney ordered ... maybe the US should send the Great Leader some US & Israeli experts to ensure a flash show worthy of passing as a 911 encore.
A circus. Should do wonders for summer Fox TV. And the Pentagon budget. Not to mention donations to those Bush family favorites the Moonies.
Posted by sloper at 06/20/2009 @ 01:20am
You must be a slow news reader, more are already financed per todays news reguardless of what you think!
"Lockheed's F-22 Raptor fighter received a surprise boost from House lawmakers who want to add $369 million to the Pentagon's budget to ensure continued production of the Air Force's most advanced jet."
Posted by BigPasture at 06/20/2009 @ 12:47am
$369 million couldn't even build 3 of these overpriced albatrosses.
Posted by koroviev at 06/20/2009 @ 02:19am
This reminds me of dirt clod fights we used to have between competeing "Armies" in dug out forts in a field behind the apt complex when I was a kid.
We would fire dirtclods at each other over some distance without any damage, most of them falling way short of the mark. But on one occasion I heaved a dirtclod with enthusiasm and hit one of the other kids in the eye and he was wearing glasses. The result was it knocked him out and damaged his eye. Police were called and lawsuits were filed. The lesson is yours to extract.
Posted by chaoszen at 06/20/2009 @ 09:03am
The lesson is yours to extract. Posted by chaoszen at 06/20/2009 @ 09:03am | ignore this person | warn this person
that would be easier if you told the denouement of the story.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 09:16am
Posted by Benchrest at 06/19/2009 @ 10:43pm
I'd suggest acquiring a basic understanding of the differences in flight trajectories between a satellite and a ballistic missile.
Posted by BigPasture at 06/20/2009 @ 12:50am
Who's the more foolish: The fool, or the fool who follows him? - Obi-Wan
Let me ask you this: if anti-ballistic missiles are so effective, why is the Navy currently crapping in its pants over the development of anti-ship ballistic missiles?
"Although ballistic missiles in the past have traditionally been used to attack fixed targets on land, DOD and other observers believe China is developing anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), which are TBMs equipped with maneuverable reentry vehicles (MaRVs) capable of hitting moving ships at sea. Observers have expressed strong concern about this development, because such missiles, in combination with broad-area maritime surveillance and targeting systems, would permit China to attack moving U.S. Navy ships in the Western Pacific...The U.S. Navy has not previously faced a threat from highly accurate ballistic missiles capable of hitting moving ships at sea. Due to their ability to change course, MaRVs would be more difficult to intercept than non-maneuvering ballistic missile reentry vehicles."
Here's three key insights:
1. Missile defense doesn't work on these things. 2. This makes carriers expensive floating targets. 3. Anyone with a brain in their head will either build them or retrofit their standard ballistic missiles to do the same thing.
So much for your Pacific demonstration.
P.S. Use a thesaurus for desolation already.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf
Posted by srjenkins at 06/20/2009 @ 09:27am
Posted by snowball666 at 06/20/2009 @ 10:30am | ignore this person | warn this person
vurry nice.
is this guy our Walt Whitman or what?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 10:59am
"I'd suggest acquiring a basic understanding of the differences in flight trajectories between a satellite and a ballistic missile. "
Posted by srjenkins at 06/20/2009 @ 09:27am
Duh.
It was meant as an example of naysayers, relative to the satellite strike, who said the Navy "could easily fail", "nearly impossible to hit just the fuel cell", etc. ad nauseam.
What do you suggest, that we don't even frickin try?
Posted by Benchrest at 06/20/2009 @ 10:59am
flight trajectories between a satellite and a ballistic missile. "
the former is an ellipse, the latter a parabola?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 11:12am
Funny, how N. Korea continually thumbs its nose just as easily at the Obamanation that makes desolation as they do at the U.N. and anyone else!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/20/2009 @ 12:52am
Yeah, as if Korea has NEVER been an issue for the U.S. before, that is, until this Administration.
LOL
Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/20/2009 @ 11:20am
zing!
Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 11:22am
that would be easier if you told the denouement of the story.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 09:16am
Err.. The outcome of the story? Although that is not necessary to the meaning of the story in relation to this post, here goes.
The case was settled out of court with my parents having to pay for medical bills and replacement glasses for my friend. His eye was not permanently damaged. Since the injury was not intentional I was not given any punishment for my action. Except that I was treated like crap for awhile by my stepfather since he had to pay the the bills. And all of us had to dismantle and fill in the dug out forts we had made.
But this was a positive thing as it turned out because it gave us the idea to occupy an abandoned house in the neighborhood and establish a "club", where we could all go and meet and smoke cigarettes and drink pilfered liquor. Aswell as bringing girls for some private time.
We quickly grew out of dirtclods and forts in favor of more adult activities.
Posted by chaoszen at 06/20/2009 @ 12:00pm
crime and punishment. good story.
when I grew up in germany there were many ruins of bombed out buildings all around, including across the street, where we would spelunk and drink wine and smoke cigs. girls? we were subteen, so that was not an issue. to the horror of our parents, since those ruins were dangerous, they could fall in or even disturb left over ordnance.
as time went on, they all became parking lots and then new buildings, a result of the "Wirtschaftswunder" , the economic miracle.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 12:08pm
To pose a question.
What would be the outcome if Kim Jong-iL was invited to the Whitehouse with no preconditions for a personal one on one with the President? With full honors accorded to any other leader of a country.
Would he accept? And what would be the outcome?
In my opinion he would accept. What other option would he have? It would instantly improve his standing in the worlds political arena. It would appeal to his bloated sense of self importance and give the little dictator a sense of belonging. He is a child really and only wants some attention. Why not give it to him?
Just thinking out of the box, however unrealistic that may be.
Posted by chaoszen at 06/20/2009 @ 12:59pm
a regional summit with China and Japan and both Koreas would also be helpful.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 1:19pm
Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 1:19pm
I Agree. Kim mostly just wants recognition and respect in the world community. I know that it is hard for the world to try and calm a child like Kim. But the effort would probably produce results.
Posted by chaoszen at 06/20/2009 @ 1:29pm
this regime has been isolated for so long. isolation makes people grumpy.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 1:32pm
Posted by snowball666 at 06/20/2009 @ 10:30am
Lord, that's what he's been going on about?
Posted by Benchrest at 06/20/2009 @ 10:59am
There is a big difference between hitting a satellite and a ballistic missile. So, it is a bad example. It is true that attempts to knock down a ballistic missile in flight can easily fail.
What do I suggest? I'd suggest a realistic look at our capabilities. We currently don't have a reliable capability to knock down ballistic missiles in flight. That's a fact. It's also a non-trivial engineering problem.
We should also accept the fact that, like the rest of the world when they consider our (or Russia's) nuclear missiles, there is no defense. Now, we know what its like to be on the other end.
We may also have to change our tactics and move away from carrier battle groups. But, pretending that missile defense systems - Aegis, Phalanx or whatever - actually work is both ignoring reality and counter-productive.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/20/2009 @ 4:47pm
Yeah, as if Korea has NEVER been an issue for the U.S. before, that is, until this Administration.
LOL
Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/20/2009 @ 11:20am | ignore this person | warn this person
Rest assured your "emptysuited rhetoric spouting" fearless leader will be the only U.S. Head of State that never will, nor even knows how to demonstably respond to their threats or any other nations!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/20/2009 @ 10:32pm
Some, such as Venezuela under the brilliant Hugo Chavez, have taken the correct method: real democracy Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 06/21/2009 @ 08:02am | ignore this person | warn this person
Must be the red dye in that marxist koolaide your drinking rotting you mind and soul!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/21/2009 @ 10:02am
One wonders, re Snowball, what the only sound that will be left in North Korea after the ambulances go. I am sure they have brooms, but any cinderellas?
Posted by onthehelm at 06/21/2009 @ 3:01pm
<i>Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 06/21/2009 @ 08:02am </i>
Ohhhh man, where to start.
I guess I'll start with the charming Hugo Chavez. Passing over the fact that he sought to become President for life and that he called Bush the devil, I wonder what the Jewish community in Venezuela thinks of him. You know, the ones he's been attacking (not with force, but with state media) for quite some time. Just when we thought stuff like the blood libel had died out...
And then there's North Korea. Just...wow. America is responsible for their current condition? 'Cause Kim Jong Il totally isn't hoarding the resources of the country or anything. Nor is North Korea one of the most repressive states on the planet (oh wait...it is). And of course, North Korea's signing of the armistice is completely and totally sincere, despite the fact that Kim Jong Il is apparently nuts enough to try hurtling a missile towards Hawaii.
And then there's the "giant Imperial plot" part. Starting with the fact that no one is forced into Ivy League schools to begin with, your theory lacks only one important component: connection to reality. After all, we've economically destroyed every country we didn't like...whoops, no. We totally didn't rebuild any of Europe (or Japan) after WWII...or did we? But of course, that must have been self-serving alliances, since the Soviets did nothing to indicate hostile intentions...oh wait they did. I grant that the US has done some nasty things in the past, but your theory of a tyrannical imperium requires a perspective that ignores most of history and views the rest through a predetermined lens that refuses to subject itself to rational scrutiny.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/21/2009 @ 3:51pm
Posted by Thrawn at 06/21/2009 @ 3:51pm
"...but your theory of a tyrannical imperium requires a perspective..."
"The old way of doing colonialism, practiced by the Europeans, was to take over entire countries and administer them. But this was clumsy. The United States has pioneered a leaner approach to global empire. As historian Chalmers Johnson says, "America's version of the colony is the military base." The United States, says Johnson, has an "empire of bases."
I'm curious what you, Thrawn, call a nation that has more than 1,000 military basis abroad that comprise more than 95% of such bases by any country? Is "tyrannical imperium" really that disconnected with reality?
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/ hugh-gusterson/empire-of-bases
Posted by srjenkins at 06/21/2009 @ 4:34pm
<i>Posted by srjenkins at 06/21/2009 @ 4:34pm </i>
Yes it is, because it makes sense only if the phrase "tyrannical imperialism" is a redundancy. I have no difficulty believing that America is an empire, but whether that empire is tyrannical is an entirely different question.
Let's talk about those military bases. If Chalmers Johnson were correct, and our version of a colony really is a military base, I have to wonder this: to what extent is Germany or Japan brought to heel? What tribute is being paid to the American state? Where are the American armies enforcing our laws across other countries? Where is the crushing of dissidents?
I won't deny that we have used our power more than we should in some ways, nor will I deny that power has the capacity and tendency to corrupt. That doesn't make the current world system a tyranny. I fail to see how it meets that standard, especially when some of those (like Ilya) claiming that standard do so based on distortions or fabrications of historical truth.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/21/2009 @ 5:09pm
It is rather strange to me to hear lefties claim the NKO missile cannot make it to Hawaii based on past testing. It only takes once. They also claim missile defense cannot work when it clearly does and will only get better as advanced development continues. The current system will be able to hit the NKO missile if it comes within range of Hawaii. The mindless claim that the F22 is useless and obsolete is based only on agenda politics and not the engineering facts. It is very clear the F22 is the worlds most advanced fighter aircraft and can more than hold its own. I guess the negative claims of the left are best described as wishful thinking but only when they are claims against their own country and never against our enemies. Go wash Hugo's feet - both you and he would like that.
Posted by pyeatte at 06/21/2009 @ 6:52pm
<i>Posted by snowball666 at 06/21/2009 @ 6:30pm </i>
To illustrate the definition of tyranny, I think we need only look at the Soviet empire during the Cold War. Though I grant that "not as bad as them" isn't a good standard for tyranny, I think it's still worth noting that what we have right now bears almost no resemblance to the cruel excesses of the Soviet empire.
Next, on tribute...is your argument actually that having a huge amount of the world's money supply is per se tyrannical?? Interesting, btw, that you should mention Japan. Its legislature has actually been contemplating abolishing Article 9 for quite some time (though it's stayed in place largely because of domestic fears rather than outside pressure), and even with Article 9 Japan has deployed units that by any reasonable standard would be construed as armed forces.
Moreover, this misses the point. Yes, we have military bases across the world, but we don't demand that Germany and other countries do precisely what we want, and certainly not at the point of a gun.
On Iraq...would your expectation be that we take down Saddam and simply leave Iraqis with no experience in democracy to their own devices? How you avoid US assistance in this matter is beyond me.
The argument on crushing dissidents strikes me as bizarre. What do you mean by "moving their capital"? When Germany protested the Iraq War, did we move Berlin?? I don't know what this argument means. "Looking like Napoleon" also does not a tyrant make.
The core of my argument is that the international system seems to lack the fundamental elements of tyranny. Though it may fairly be described as an empire, the US does not seek to rule with an iron fist.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/21/2009 @ 7:33pm
The core of my argument is that the international system seems to lack the fundamental elements of tyranny. Though it may fairly be described as an empire, the US does not seek to rule with an iron fist. Posted by Thrawn at 06/21/2009 @ 7:33pm
I believe this is what someone in the Kennedy Administration referred to as putting a silk glove over the iron fist. Soft imperialism: use various economic levers to terrorize the population, as well as fund brutal military regimes, but only send in our own military if we think a victory is absolutely assured (which has not worked too well recently).
Posted by onthehelm at 06/21/2009 @ 7:49pm
Let me clarify. A military is meant to be an iron fist by definition, and the fact that economic levers are attached to military force doesn't make one tyrannical. Otherwise, any nation that ever used an army would be tyrannical by definition. A tyranny has to go beyond that. Your argument requires that a blockade + invasion is tyrannical by definition, no matter what the specific circumstances.
A tyranny uses either force or the threat or force to impose its will across the board. That's why the references to Germany, Japan, etc. were relevant. How hard did we squeeze France and Germany for not going along with us in the Iraq War (a silly "freedom fries" social movement doesn't count)? We don't make this world bend to our every whim, not even close. Again, I'd ask you to reference the old Soviet empire for a comparison. I'd argue that even at the height of the Cold War, we were nowhere near that. Certainly, we're not now; we're not even in the same ballpark as that.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/21/2009 @ 8:34pm
Posted by Thrawn at 06/21/2009 @ 5:09pm
"Let's talk about those military bases."
Let's flip the script. What purpose do these bases serve, if not to project power for the benefit of the United States? What other rationale justifies the expense?
Also, I would like you to try to argue that this capability doesn't translate into bringing states to heel, tribute and so forth. It most certainly does.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/21/2009 @ 7:33pm
Tyranny, at its most broad, is exploitation of the general population in the interests of a small minority. Given the population of the world, the United States is a small minority, and it is also clear that this minority uses a disproportional amount of the world resources.
Would you like to argue that this system is not predicated on the ability to project military power globally and that there is some other reason why we spend more on the military than the next ten countries combined?
I'd like you to lay out your thesis clearly, so I can address it. My thesis is that the U.S. is an empire and this empire is a form of tyranny. This tyranny rests on the projection of military power, and this results in tangible benefits to U.S. citizens.
So, lay out your ideas about what the purpose of this system of bases is for, the need for the level of spending on the military we currently spend, and the role of the U.S. in the world. Then please show me where I'm wrong here - but I think you are on very shaky ground.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/21/2009 @ 8:34pm
I think the main problem is semantics. You are using very narrow definitions of tyranny that ignore soft uses of power, such as threats. In a post-nuclear world, what more do you really need than a threat? Why else worry about North Korea and Iran?
Posted by srjenkins at 06/21/2009 @ 10:07pm
Posted by srjenkins at 06/20/2009 @ 4:47pm
"There is a big difference between hitting a satellite and a ballistic missile. So, it is a bad example."
*I thought we already covered what the example was.
"What do I suggest? I'd suggest a realistic look at our capabilities. We currently don't have a reliable capability to knock down ballistic missiles in flight. That's a fact. It's also a non-trivial engineering problem. "
*Reliable? Quantify that statement. Nothing is ever perfectly reliable in weapon systems.
"We should also accept the fact that, like the rest of the world when they consider our (or Russia's) nuclear missiles, there is no defense. Now, we know what its like to be on the other end."
*There is no defense against BMs after they deploy their MRVs, however, it is logical and possible to target them before they deploy. Not targeting them is not an option.
"We may also have to change our tactics and move away from carrier battle groups. But, pretending that missile defense systems - Aegis, Phalanx or whatever - actually work is both ignoring reality and counter-productive."
*You are fudging a litttle. They don't work at a foolproof level yet, but work they do, and likely will be improved dramatically in the future. I think giving up on the technology is silly. And counter-productive.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/21/2009 @ 10:34pm
This is comical, now the leftist are also saying the Obamanation that makes desolation is LIEING about protecting U.S.A.'s soil with anti-missle technology!!!!
President Barack Obama says the United States is "prepared for any contingencies" involving North Korea _ including the regime's reported threat to launch a long-range missile toward Hawaii.
Obama said that while he didn't want to "speculate on hypotheticals," he did want to reassure Americans that "the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted" regarding U.S. preparation for a possible North Korean attempt to attack Hawaii. The interview, taped Friday with CBS' Harry Smith, will be aired Monday on "The Early Show."
Japanese media have reported the North Koreans appear to be preparing for a long-range test near July 4. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has ordered additional protections for Hawaii in case a missile is launched over the Pacific Ocean.
Which is it, Obamas a liar, or the defense system works?
Posted by BigPasture at 06/21/2009 @ 11:07pm
Keep in mind that N. Korea wants S. Korea, and its looking at any political/military ruse that will give it to them. IF they are foolish enough to launch a missile toward Hawaii, and come anywhere near it, President Obama will lose what ever credibility he has with this "long lead" thinking of his. N. Korea represents a clear and present danger to a significant number of our allies and ourselves. John Kennedy would have been on the TV already warning those people what would happen. My fear is that the "long lead" diplomacy will feed our enemies with a incorrectly perceived level of confidence we don't have the stomach to defend ourselves. Feeding peace to a dictator is like sugar lumps to a horse.
Posted by jrl3876 at 06/21/2009 @ 11:28pm
Posted by Benchrest at 06/21/2009 @ 10:34pm
"Quantify that statement. Nothing is ever perfectly reliable in weapon systems."
At this point, it's all theoretical. It doesn't have any kind of established reliability. You can refer to the following document for an explanation of all the reasons why.
"... it is logical and possible to target them before they deploy."
In other words, boost phase defense. The concluding remarks in the summary of the report below states:
"...when all factors are considered none of the boost phase defense concepts is likely to be viable for the foreseeable future..."
"Not targeting them is not an option."
We you don't have a realistic option to target them, not targeting them is your only option.
"They don't work at a foolproof level..."
They have worked in a few tests. While a few systems are operation, they have not been shown to be a realistic defense, much less "foolproof".
http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/upload/BPI_Report.pdf
Posted by srjenkins at 06/21/2009 @ 11:49pm
Posted by BigPasture at 06/21/2009 @ 11:07pm
Missile defense doesn't work. Obama lies. Any other questions or false dichotomies you want to bring into the discussion?
Posted by srjenkins at 06/21/2009 @ 11:52pm
"They have worked in a few tests. "
Posted by srjenkins at 06/21/2009 @ 11:49pm
Missile defense doesn't work.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/21/2009 @ 11:52pm
At what percentage of successful tests would you consider missile defense viable?
Is it your opinion that the current success rate will never improve?
Posted by Benchrest at 06/22/2009 @ 12:41am
Outsourcing for small business! We have thousands of skilled freelancers ready to bid on your jobs and produce high quality work quickly and to budget. It only takes seconds to post a project and receive bids! Over US$38,015,600 has been spent by our users to date.
http://www.getafreelancer.com
Posted by getafreelancer at 06/22/2009 @ 04:49am
"Even Heritage Foundation expert Bruce Klingner said it was misleading to report that North Korean missiles would be launched toward Hawaii."
How do you work up good right-wing paranoia...
if you don't even have the HERITAGE FOUNDATION on your side??!?!?!????
heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/22/2009 @ 08:07am
Posted by Benchrest at 06/22/2009 @ 12:41am
Tests don't make for viability, particularly in an ICBM context. The question is: do they work? They don't.
Further, for every improvement to anti-ballistic missile technology (a very hard engineering problem), it is much easier to improve ballistic missiles with greater maneuverability, decoys and the like (all much easier to do from an engineering standpoint) that the only realistic missile defense is mutually assured destruction.
Missile defense is just throwing away money on a pipe dream because you don't know what else to do. It's stupid.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/22/2009 @ 09:04am
"Missile defense is just throwing away money on a pipe dream because you don't know what else to do. It's stupid."
Posted by srjenkins at 06/22/2009 @ 09:04am
And there is the crux of the matter.
We don't know what else to do.
But doing nothing is not acceptable.
So, we continue to build upon the current technologies, in the hope that success lies just around the corner. That darn future is so hard to predict, but the successful tests are encouraging that one is on the right track.
Who would have ever thought twenty years ago that we could hit a fuel cell on a satellite.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/22/2009 @ 10:14am
Posted by Benchrest at 06/22/2009 @ 10:14am
In other words, you've got nothing but hope. Unfortunately, your version of hope is awfully expensive and not based in reality. Maybe if you flap your arms long enough they might turn into wings - why not invest in that too?
Posted by srjenkins at 06/22/2009 @ 10:24am
Posted by srjenkins at 06/22/2009 @ 10:24am
Maybe you have a really good sling-shot we could borrow?
Posted by Benchrest at 06/22/2009 @ 10:37am
Bench is our local "Leo McGarry".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Drop-In
Posted by Mask at 06/22/2009 @ 10:45am
Posted by Mask at 06/22/2009 @ 10:45am
ha ha
I think I read 'The Little Engine That Could' one too many times.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/22/2009 @ 10:57am
"... so maybe we can start up a program where we use DoD money to install solar panels...sorry...photovoltaic missile defense shields...on people's roofs."
Posted by snowball666 at 06/22/2009 @ 10:56am
See? Fresh ideas.
"You want a job Ernie?" Al Pacino, Scarface
Posted by Benchrest at 06/22/2009 @ 11:37am
Posted by Benchrest at 06/22/2009 @ 10:57am
Probably when the North Koreans build a missile that can actually hit something....we can build one that can actually hit it.
Could take years for both...heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/22/2009 @ 12:23pm
Could take years for both...heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/22/2009 @ 12:23pm
>:[
You haven't seen my giant moon based "laser".
As for you SRJ, I have some ill tempered seabass I would like to introduce you to.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/22/2009 @ 3:04pm
"Your stock is rising, Number Two!"
Posted by Mask at 06/22/2009 @ 3:13pm
<i>Posted by snowball666 at 06/21/2009 @ 11:31pm </i>
I argue that the standard for tyranny has to be more narrow than what you appear to be describing, not simply because the word has such deeply negative moral connotations to it, but also because it is typically regarded as an intolerable state of affairs.
The first thing I'd argue is that tyranny doesn't just exist in a vacuum. An entity that is tyrannical exercises influence over a particular territory. It does so in a way that among other things, systematically oppresses their rights, swiftly punishes dissent, and is not accountable in any way to those it abuses.
If you are going to say that the US is a tyranny, we have to do two things. First, we have to ask what the domain is over which the US exercises power. If it's alleged to be an "imperial tyranny," presumably the claim is that the tyrannical state of affairs applies internationally. Second, we have to ask what the state of affairs is WITHIN that domain (because that's the domain that's relevant).
This is why I referenced the Soviet empire. To call the Soviet Union a tyranny over the countries it controlled, one must ask what the conditions where in those specific territories. They were pretty abominable, and a textbook case of tyrannical rule. I don't see virtually any country today under American "rule" that fits that description. Unjustified war isn't enough by itself, nor is the possession of substantial military force. Going our own way and manipulating prices of goods doesn't count as tyranny either; the only reason the Stamp Act could have been called tyrannical was because Britain specifically forced the colonists to pay a tax and enforced that with their formidable firepower. The most you can say is that we've sometimes flirted with it.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/22/2009 @ 4:52pm
<i>Posted by snowball666 at 06/22/2009 @ 5:54pm </i>
Then why do 90% of the countries we park military bases near choose to not do what we want, and still never get punished in any form or fashion? Multiple times, we've had the military power to overwhelm them or bring them into submission if we so chose. We've had ways of imposing our will across the world if that's really what we were interested in. So why hasn't it happened? And is it your argument also that loans must be unconditional if given to less wealthy countries?
And a more specific question: if we've secured oil privatization...why haven't our troops left? If you're arguing that it's because the oil depends on Iraq's stability, our objectives are hardly different than if we were altruistic.
Your argument also requires something else: virtually no one in the American levers of power has a conscience. Do you really believe that?
Posted by Thrawn at 06/22/2009 @ 9:27pm
Anybody recently read about the U.S. Navy towed sonar array bumping into a Chinese sub?
The question from this event to ask is, which vessel didn't know the other one was there? If Navy didn't pick up the sub, it was obviously within striking distance without the ship knowing about it. This is a major deal if we can't track their subs.
I'd be more worried about what the Chinese Navy is doing versus North Korea.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/23/2009 @ 07:35am
Your argument also requires something else: virtually no one in the American levers of power has a conscience. Do you really believe that?
Posted by Thrawn at 06/22/2009 @ 9:27pm
W and Cheney sure as hell didn't and don't. How many dead in Iraq and how many dead American troops? And for what? Iraq is now worse than it was under Saddam.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/23/2009 @ 07:44am
Perhaps the sonar on the 'USS John McCain' isn't quite what is used to be...stodgy old coot of a destroyer that it is.
Posted by snowball666 at 06/23/2009 @ 08:49am
Barely a blurb in the news about this, but I wonder if that woke some people up? The destroyer may be old, but don't they install modern equipment aboard them when they bring them in for repairs and refitting and upgrades? Then again, when we have sooo much money to blow on defense, why not just a whole new fleet of destroyers instead of upgrading the old ones. LOL
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/23/2009 @ 09:20am
just a.....sorry, meant to say just purchase a whole.....
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/23/2009 @ 09:27am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/23/2009 @ 07:35am
You need to know much more about the circumstance. Where in Subac Bay? What kind of sub? How was it running? Why was the array deployed? Etc. Unfortunately, we don't have these details.
But the bottom line is that if a sub is just sitting there without moving, even the best passive sonar array is not going to pick it up.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/23/2009 @ 09:43am
"Lockheed's F-22 Raptor fighter received a surprise boost from House lawmakers who want to add $369 million to the Pentagon's budget to ensure continued production of the Air Force's most advanced jet."
Posted by BigPasture at 06/20/2009 @ 12:47am
If I'm not mistaken, the $369m is for pre-delivery improvements to F22's already appropriated for but still in the pipeline.
Providing a link to your quote would enable readers to read the rest of the article in question, which would change the context of the quote.
(Oh, what was I thinking? I'll look it up again myself.)
Posted by drhammer at 06/23/2009 @ 10:26am
'[W]hen I grew up in [G]ermany there were many ruins of bombed out buildings all around' -- emile duBois
Obama to Apologize for American "War Crimes" During WWII
DRESDEN, GERMANY
Derek Seizer Deutsche Welle 21/5/2009
In a move aimed at healing the rifts of American foreign policy decisions, President Obama will make a trip to Europe next month, including a trip to Dresden, Germany. The trip will consist of several stops and the President will meet with the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany. Also slated are several policy speeches.
Perhaps the most controversial is a planned speech in which President Obama will formally apologize for American ‘war crimes' during the Second World War. This would be particularly comforting to Europeans, who have long condemned American foreign policy actions, especially regarding civilians.
Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/23/2009 @ 10:37am
"If I'm not mistaken, the $369m is for pre-delivery improvements to F22's"
Posted by drhammer at 06/23/2009 @ 10:26am
Shipping and Handling.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/23/2009 @ 11:04am
Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/23/2009 @ 10:37am
BTW, the source for HL's post is...of course..
Free Republic....whose motto since James von Brunn is probably "Please Cancel Your Subscription BEFORE Going On Your Shooting Spree!"
Posted by Mask at 06/23/2009 @ 11:09am
HonestLiberal, I think you got burned by the internet-link problem, girl. Obama's Europe tour did include a visit to Dresden and also to Buchenwald, and the trip was criticized as drawing a parallel between the two, but I can't find a mention on the Deutsche Welle website about Obama making such a comparison, though who knows what was "planned". His visit to Buchenwald was probably because a relative of his was in one of the army units that was there (Although Obama erroneously said it was the Auschwitw extermination camp in his campaign speeches, which would have made his relative a Red Army soldier, rather than an American G.I. heheh).
Posted by Mistral at 06/23/2009 @ 12:43pm
Mistral,
Ouch, you're right, I got burned by a malicious mistranslator! Mea culpa. The link to Deutsche Welle was to a story about Buchenwald and Dresden, but the actual article just talked about the firebombing of Dresden and the holocaust at Buchenwald and that President Obama was going to give a speech there. Of course the symbolism is just as bad as Reagan's visit to Bitburg (probably worse - how many military cemetaries in Germany could you find without Waffen-SS casualties buried with the regular Wehrmact soldiers?)...
Maybe emile Dubois can find the correct link on the Deutsche Welle site. I seem to remember Dubois claiming to speak German.
Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/23/2009 @ 1:57pm
"Ouch, you're right, I got burned by a malicious mistranslator! Mea culpa."----Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/23/2009 @ 1:57pm
Cool...I think I'LL QUOTE this, from now on.
LOL
Posted by Mask at 06/23/2009 @ 2:59pm
Honestliberal, Wow, it seems that Mask is excited that although President Obama DID go on tour, apologizing for America (except at Normandy beach, I guess) and DID visit Buchenwald and Dresden and Deutsche Welle DID have an article about Obama's planned speech BUT the article you quoted incorrectly did NOT have a CONJECTURE about what the writer thought the speech MIGHT contain...so now Mask has something to put in a post other than ad hominem and "heheh." Progress, I guess.
heheh
Posted by Mistral at 06/23/2009 @ 3:20pm
Posted by srjenkins at 06/23/2009 @ 09:43am
Don't you think it a bit odd that a Chinese sub is hanging around that close to an American ship while knowing full well that the American ship is observing the North Korean ship in question?
My question remains. Did the Chinese sub sneak past our subs without us knowing about it? It had to get that close to the McCain somehow.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/23/2009 @ 3:37pm
I didn't know Mask said anything, I've got him on ignore.
Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/23/2009 @ 4:30pm
<i>Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/23/2009 @ 07:44am </i>
Cheney may not have, but Bush almost certainly did. He just didn't bother himself with details.
<i>Posted by snowball666 at 06/23/2009 @ 08:19am </i>
How about, um, Europe? Germany actively opposed us on the Iraq war, as did France. What precisely was their penalty? How many Middle Eastern countries get swift retaliation for not coming to heel exactly as we'd like?
And moreover...disagreeing with someone politically is far from a good argument for them not having a soul. You literally have to believe that the overwhelming majority of the American government is either blissfully unaware of our alleged tyranny or is actively fostering it. This allegation seems far too incredible to believe, even without the incidents that don't rise nearly to the level of tyranny.
Look, I get that we try to get our way a number of times, and often we succeed. It just seems that tyranny has a much darker and more brutal connotation than would remotely apply here. This is part of the point that you didn't address. Multiple times, we've had the power to really bring the hammer on much of the world if we so chose. If we really are the tyranny you allege...why haven't we done it?
Posted by Thrawn at 06/23/2009 @ 4:33pm
...and I searched the Free Republic website: they don't mention the Deutsche Welle article.
Posted by Mistral at 06/24/2009 @ 11:44am
You literally have to believe that the overwhelming majority of the American government is either blissfully unaware of our alleged tyranny or is actively fostering it. This allegation seems far too incredible to believe, even without the incidents that don't rise nearly to the level of tyranny.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/23/2009 @ 4:33pm
You need to look back at what Richard Nixon did as president. He thought that the executive branch could do whatever the hell it wanted....even if what it wanted to do was illegal. Sound familiar?
Look, there are multiple circumstances in which the Bush administration either flat out broke the law or skirted it so close as to the point that even their own party was looking at them with raised eyebrows.
When John Dean III, a republican, comes out and says they are guilty of worse crimes than Nixon ever what have thought of, it should make you at the least bit suspicious of the Bush administrations activities. Remember that Dean was one of Nixon's White House attorneys and has firsthand knowledge on this particular subject.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/24/2009 @ 1:25pm