Missile Defense -- another failed Bush security promise

D

dennis_t

CAGiversary!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58080-2004Sep28.html

By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 29, 2004; Page A01


At a newly constructed launch site on a tree-shorn plain in central Alaska, a large crane crawls from silo to silo, gently lowering missiles into their holes. The sleek white rockets, each about five stories tall, are designed to soar into space and intercept warheads headed toward the United States.

With five installed so far and one more due by mid-October, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is preparing to activate the site sometime this autumn. President Bush already has begun to claim fulfillment of a 2000 presidential campaign pledge -- and longtime Republican Party goal -- to build a nationwide missile defense.

But what the administration had hoped would be a triumphant achievement is clouded by doubts, even within the Pentagon, about whether a system that is on its way to costing more than $100 billion will work. Several key components have fallen years behind schedule and will not be available until later. Flight tests, plagued by delays, have yet to advance beyond elementary, highly scripted events.

The paucity of realistic test data has caused the Pentagon's chief weapons evaluator to conclude that he cannot offer a confident judgment about the system's viability. He estimated its likely effectiveness to be as low as 20 percent.

"A system is being deployed that doesn't have any credible capability," said retired Gen. Eugene Habiger, who headed the U.S. Strategic Command in the mid-1990s. "I cannot recall any military system being deployed in such a manner."

Senior officials at the Pentagon and the White House insist the system will provide protection, although they use terms such as "rudimentary" and "limited" to describe its initial capabilities. Some missile defense, they say, is better than none, and what is deployed this year will be improved over time.

"Did we have perfection with our first airplane, our first rifle, our first ship?" Rumsfeld said in an interview last month. "I mean, they'd still be testing at Kitty Hawk, for God's sake, if you wanted perfection."
 
President Bush already has begun to claim fulfillment of a 2000 presidential campaign pledge -- and longtime Republican Party goal -- to build a nationwide missile defense.



He estimated its likely effectiveness to be as low as 20 percent.



Some missile defense, they say, is better than none, and what is deployed this year will be improved over time.

"Did we have perfection with our first airplane, our first rifle, our first ship?" Rumsfeld said in an interview last month. "I mean, they'd still be testing at Kitty Hawk, for God's sake, if you wanted perfection."
Click to expand...

So if they launch missiles at 5 major US cities, one would still be standing. Not too shabby. :?
 
True but their point seems to be, if we had no missile defense none would be left standing. That said I think just a majority of the defense systems created have had hang-ups and delays, it's really nothing too new.
 
I was just thinking it is the fault of our elected officials that our defense sector can't program a bullet to hit a bullet 100% of the time but Dennis beat me to it.
 
I work in missile defense, and we constantly see funding getting cut. Programs that go into development then get cut before any hardware is every built. Sometimes it's even built, but whoops, no money left to test it.

If we had what Iraq gets for "rebuilding" ($87billion), we'd no doubt be a lot further ahead then where we are now.
 
Of course it's not Bush's fault that it's not perfect. And a partially functioning system is better than none (though we probably spent enough on it to expect better than 20%).

The problem I see is this:
President Bush already has begun to claim fulfillment of a 2000 presidential campaign pledge -- and longtime Republican Party goal -- to build a nationwide missile defense.

Technically I guess we will have a nationwide missile defense system, just one that doesn't really work. :(
 
Looks like actually reading the article brings you to the opposite conclusion of your Bush-hating-rhetoric subject, Dennis. You can argue, perhaps validly, that the system is not ready to be deployed, but he did promise to have missile defense and a system is being deployed. That seems like fulfilling your promise to me.

Personally I don't know when exactly is the right time to go ahead and build the system because I am no expert. But I do know one thing, the people who are dead set against us ever having missile defense are dead wrong. Just look at what North Korea and Iran are doing with missiles, not to mention terrorists possibly getting their hands on one. We need missile defense for the future defense of the U.S.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Looks like actually reading the article brings you to the opposite conclusion of your Bush-hating-rhetoric subject, Dennis. You can argue, perhaps validly, that the system is not ready to be deployed, but he did promise to have missile defense and a system is being deployed. That seems like fulfilling your promise to me.

Personally I don't know when exactly is the right time to go ahead and build the system because I am no expert. But I do know one thing, the people who are dead set against us ever having missile defense are dead wrong. Just look at what North Korea and Iran are doing with missiles, not to mention terrorists possibly getting their hands on one. We need missile defense for the future defense of the U.S.[/quote]

So....if I promise you a house and move you into a dirt-floor lean-to, I will have fulfilled my promise to you?
 
[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='elprincipe']Looks like actually reading the article brings you to the opposite conclusion of your Bush-hating-rhetoric subject, Dennis. You can argue, perhaps validly, that the system is not ready to be deployed, but he did promise to have missile defense and a system is being deployed. That seems like fulfilling your promise to me.

Personally I don't know when exactly is the right time to go ahead and build the system because I am no expert. But I do know one thing, the people who are dead set against us ever having missile defense are dead wrong. Just look at what North Korea and Iran are doing with missiles, not to mention terrorists possibly getting their hands on one. We need missile defense for the future defense of the U.S.[/quote]

So....if I promise you a house and move you into a dirt-floor lean-to, I will have fulfilled my promise to you?[/quote]

Bad analogy, unless lean-tos are the only housing technology available. In that case, yes, you did fulfill your promise.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']True but their point seems to be, if we had no missile defense none would be left standing. That said I think just a majority of the defense systems created have had hang-ups and delays, it's really nothing too new.[/quote]


And if 10 terrorist with suitcase bombs from the old USSR came over there would be 10 cities gone.
 
[quote name='David85'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell']True but their point seems to be, if we had no missile defense none would be left standing. That said I think just a majority of the defense systems created have had hang-ups and delays, it's really nothing too new.[/quote]


And if 10 terrorist with suitcase bombs from the old USSR came over there would be 10 cities gone.[/quote]

What the hell is your point exactly pretaining to this argument? A missile defense system can't stop people carrying suitcase bombs unless it's used to shoot down planes that carry a hundred or so many innnocent people.
 
I believe the point is that the basic idea of a missle defense system is one that's 20 years out-of-date. The real threat to the US now, here in the 21st century, are terrorist organizations, and if/when they attack, they don't use missles. The missle defense program is costing a fortune, money that could be used to defend against much more pressing and realistic threats.
 
Drocket, keep in mind that nations like North Korea have recently achieved nuclear capability. Terrorists would absolutely LOVE to get their hands on those weapons, and there isn't really a whole lot stopping North Korea from selling one. The threat is real.
 
[quote name='Pylis']... and there isn't really a whole lot stopping North Korea from selling one.[/quote]

You mean other than the fact that we'd nuke them off the face of the planet in retaliation? Kim Jong-il is evil, but he's not stupid.
 
Hey, I'll agree with you that we'd nuke them off the face of the planet if we had to. That's a given. The problem is that there isn't much of a way to tell exactly what they're doing at all times, and by the time we find out about some kind of underhanded deal it may be too late. Kim Jong-Il isn't stupid, and he also realizes that the USA and the world will exhaust every possible option and then some before resorting to nuclear weapons, so there's always the chance that he'll see how far he can push the line.
 
[quote name='Drocket']I believe the point is that the basic idea of a missle defense system is one that's 20 years out-of-date. The real threat to the US now, here in the 21st century, are terrorist organizations, and if/when they attack, they don't use missles. The missle defense program is costing a fortune, money that could be used to defend against much more pressing and realistic threats.[/quote]

Well isn't the arguments above that the missle defense system is useless because it's not completed? Yet it's not completed because we are spending the money in Iraq, technically to fight terrorists there.

Moreover, it doesn't make any sense to say it's not a threat...If we were only worried about terriorists that don't use missile why were the nations of Iran and North Korea such hot topics during the debate? Why are democrats grilling the administration over those countries gaining nuclear capability if they aren't a real threat? Why did both Kerry & Bush say nuclear proliferation (I'm not going to pretend I know how to spell that) is the biggest issue that places a possible threat to us and we have to address it now?
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Well isn't the arguments above that the missle defense system is useless because it's not completed?[/quote]
Well, the topic moved on to 'suitcase nukes', which is what I was referring to.

Yet it's not completed because we are spending the money in Iraq, technically to fight terrorists there.
Click to expand...
No, its not done because its a virtually impossible project, just from a technological point-of-view. As far as I know, the project isn't particularly hurting for funding: its just such a hideously complex problem that some of the most brilliant minds in the world who have been working on the project for years have only been able to come up with marginally effective solution.

So now we've spend multi-billions for a marginally-effective defense against a rather unlikely form of attack: The far bigger threat are small portable nuclear devices that could be snuck into the country undetected. Very few countries are likely to use nuclear missles for the reasons that I gave above - they'd immediately be nuked into dust and they know it. They're also very unlikely to give over a nuclear missle to a terrorist organization: A nuclear missle capable of intercontinental flight is generally well over 200 feet long, and requires a huge amount of equipment to launch with any accuracy. Even if a terrorist organization HAD a nuclear missle, its very unlikely that they'd even be able to use it: they'd almost certainly wind up detaching the warhead and (again) sneak it into the country.

So again, we have a marginally effective defense against a highly unlikely form of attack. Meanwhile, the vast majority of cargo entering the country does so without any meaningful inspection.
 
While I still think that such a defense system is ultimately a necessity, you gave a very persuasive argument, Drocket. Not that you give a shit, but you made me think about this for a bit.
 
Of course it's not Bush's fault that it's not perfect. And a partially functioning system is better than none (though we probably spent enough on it to expect better than 20%).
Click to expand...
Its Bush's fault for implimenting a flawed, incomplete system that some experts say could never work. They knew this for a fact beforehand.

What the hell is your point exactly pretaining to this argument? A missile defense system can't stop people carrying suitcase bombs unless it's used to shoot down planes that carry a hundred or so many innnocent people.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the point. WE DON'T NEED MISSILE DEFENSE. It is a cold war mentality that protects us from the major threats of the 80s. If we are nuked, it will almost certainly not be by any government, and won't be by a missile. Why use a missile? Just load it onto a cargo ship and detonate after it enters the port, doesn't even need to leave the boat. Wouldn't we be a lot safer if some of the billions spent on missile defense were instead used on ports?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top