Can Pres. Bush Stop A Decades Old Fraud? (Missile Defense)

[NATO AIR]

its not going to work anytime soon. very few democrats or republicans have the political courage to speak the truth to the american people. we need these billions of dollars to arm, train and fund the rest of the military and our homeland defense augments. pres. bush, can you please take a stand on this and take the historic opportunity to save tens of billions of dollars?

http://www.slate.com/id/2106853/

 

[onedomino]

its not going to work anytime soon. very few democrats or republicans have the political courage to speak the truth to the american people. we need these billions of dollars to arm, train and fund the rest of the military and our homeland defense augments. pres. bush, can you please take a stand on this and take the historic opportunity to save tens of billions of dollars?

http://www.slate.com/id/2106853/

We differ on this topic. While not all MD tests have been successful, the technologies involved (ballistic missiles, communications, information management, etc.) need further integration and continuing development. Many new military technologies are not very effective upon initial deployment. The first US aircraft carrier, the "Langley," is a good example. http://www.grunts.net/navy/ships/usslangley.html Yet the "Yorktown" and the "Kitty Hawk" are examples of why development needed to continue.

There have been several successful MD tests. http://www.acq.osd.mil/mda/mdalink/html/mdalink.html Deployment and development should continue because the protection of America and it allies against WMD equipped rogue states must be a top priority. If we need more money for what you mentioned (and I agree with you that we do), then we should obtain it elsewhere.

North Korea probably already has a small number of nuclear weapons and definitely possesses ballistic missiles capable of Japan overflight. How long before NK weapons can reach San Francisco or Vancouver? The President is required to defend against this threat. Here is the most important point: without MD, then the only option available for defense is preemptive attack. While such may still be an option with Iran, it is no longer an option with NK (if it ever was). The sociopaths running NK have a tremendous amount of conventional weaponry (and probably nukes) pointed directly at Seoul, which is only 30 miles away from the NK/SK DMZ. Twelve million people live in Seoul. The preemption of NK ceased to be a viable option a long time ago. Thus, the only option remaining is MD. Seoul, Tokyo, Los Angeles, etc., cannot be left open to NK missile attack. Moreover, Israel cannot be left open to Iranian missile attack. If we do not have the nerve to preempt Iranian nuke development (and if we did, such preemption would have probably already occurred), then MD is the only option.

 

[NATO AIR]

its not going to work anytime soon. QUOTE]

that's my main point. maybe i'm too demanding (a lot of people disagreed with my viewpoint of the condition of the FBI/Justice Dept.), but I expect after this much time (and money!) to be a hell of a lot more progress than there exists now.

that is why i view it as a fraud of taxpayer dollars and a dangerous drain on an increasingly strained budget . there has yet to be a leader to put his foot in the ass of these folks to hunker down and produce. instead we get baby steps (in the grand scheme of things), at precisely the time when we need a breakthrough.

i fully agree about the threat of N. Korea and Iran (China too, in a worst worst worst case scenario), but i feel at this point we have to cut our losses on this for the time being. we need those billions of dollars very badly in other places. we need to rapidly secure and account for ALL russian nukes. we need to dramatically push for FULL securement of all fissille material, in order to keep the ingredients for nuclear weapons out of the hands of bin laden and future rogue nations.

this is possible by the way
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/062104.html

after we secure our borders properly in the best way, after we secure the nuclear ingredients, then let us revisit missile defense and try (again) to make headway with massive funding. but i demand results, and the results i've seen (and the vast majority of the defense oriented scientific community) have been far below expectations.

 

[Zhukov]

I disagree, not only do I think it's feasible (we've the best minds in the world), but I think it's an imperative. The ability to knock ballistic missiles out of the air will seriously alter the playing field, militarily and diplomaticaly, in our favor.

I agree we should spend more to secure fissile material in Russia too, and I think we can do both.

 

[NATO AIR]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6126469/

update on the continued failure

 

[Comrade]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6126469/

update on the continued failure

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."

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....

"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.

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.

And as high as what?

 

[NATO AIR]

well its always nice to know we spent tens of billions of dollars on a system for the past 30 years, with little pay off, at a time when the navy needs many more ships, the air force needs a new fighter, the army needs a lot more soldiers, more vehicles and more equipment and the homeland needs a lot more defense than its got right now.

if its 75% effective as a possible high, that's still 25% of the missiles that get through.

it is not worth the money at this time. we have much much more pressing priorities in our military.

 

[Comrade]

well its always nice to know we spent tens of billions of dollars on a system for the past 30 years, with little pay off, at a time when the navy needs many more ships, the air force needs a new fighter, the army needs a lot more soldiers, more vehicles and more equipment and the homeland needs a lot more defense than its got right now.

if its 75% effective as a possible high, that's still 25% of the missiles that get through.

it is not worth the money at this time. we have much much more pressing priorities in our military.

Aren't these needs also well funded as the budget stands? My feeling is the existing US Navy is far beyond necessary strength in comparison to say, perhaps, our special forces.


But the whole point of the missile defence is not to achieve 100% perfection, but to make it impossible for someone like Kim Il to attack America with any certainty of success.

 

[NATO AIR]

well the CNO (Chief Of Naval Operations) vision for the navy of the next decade, they need to increase substantially the rate of shipbuilding, as well as the acquistion of the new Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.

consider also that 3 of our 12 aircraft carriers are scheduled for decom in the next 15 years. my ship, the kitty hawk...the enterprise and the JFK.

only one is in the pipeline for replacing these three right now, and that's the G.H.W. Bush

 

[Zhukov]

Well, we're getting the new joint strike fighter right? I thought that had already been decided.

I know you're a Navy man, but do we really need more ships? Especially another super-carrier (which I'm assuming the GHWB will be, yes?). Of course a super-carrier costs about as much as a single B-2, so what the hell.

Besides, MD technology will help protect the fleet as well. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Castro planned to fire tactical nukes at any U.S. invasion force. If Kim wanted to hit something, any U.S. naval prescene in the area would make an inviting target.

We're rich and we can afford it all, and we should be willing to pay for it, in my opinion. Including that Comanche (who the hell voted against that?)