Donald Rumsfeld couldn't get his rocket up. Again.
This past Sunday, the Pentagon tried to test its missile defense system, aka "Star Wars." The basic principle is the theory that a missile launched by the U.S. could hit and destroy an enemy missile heading in our direction.
As in the previous test in December, the interceptor rocket failed to launch.
There have now been 10 tests of the system. Five were considered "successes," even though in those cases the interceptor rockets were programmed with the trajectories of their targets. The last three tests in a row have failed.
The system also reportedly doesn't work in cloudy weather.
So assuming North Korea, or perhaps China, launches eight missiles or less (the number of interceptor rockets we have in place) on a sunny day and provides us with the rockets' itineraries in advance, we can hope to knock out half of them.
Better check with Ned Flanders and see if he's got room for you in his shelterini.
Each test costs approximately $85 million. Funding for the program over the next five years is estimated at $50 billion.
What an enormous waste of money. The program is impotent against terrorist threats; it's highly, highly unlikely that a terrorist organization could get its hands on and successfully launch a long-range ballistic missile. Even if they could get a nuclear or conventional warhead on a missile, it's more likely to be a smaller, short-range rocket that theoretically might be launched from a boat just off the U.S. coast. Our interceptor could never get there in time.
Publicly and repeatedly demonstrating its dysfunction calls into question its effectiveness as a tool of deterrence, as well.
Simply put, given the likelihood of an intercontinental missile attack on the U.S. (right now, slim) and the fact that many experts doubt the concept could ever work, we should be directing our financial and technical resources to more immediate threats, such as finding ways to defend nuclear and chemical plants and other parts of the infrastructure from terrorist attacks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
You stole my column idea for this week, including my lead sentence! Damn you!
Maureen Dowd
Yet another liberal who finds fault without offering alternative ideas. Bitch, bitch, bitch. In case you haven't been following the news lately, North Korea now has nuclear weapons, and yet you claim there's no need for any kind of defense system. You yourself point out there have only been ten tests, clearly it's in preliminary stages and not going to be perfect.
But I guess you'd rather paint a big target on your ass and point it toward Korea.
Here's an alternative idea. Can missle defense until we can get engineers who can do better than designing the pinto of all defense systems.
Obviously you're on the west coast. Here on the East Coast we're sitting pretty.. No Kim Jong Missle is going to hit us.
Perhaps if Reagan's Star Wars program would have been kept up with the testing would be more successful? Should we wait until other countries are capable of firing long range missiles before we start developing systems to take them out? Growing pains, however costly, are part of the process. Is it really so suprising that it is taking a long time for the government to get something done? Whether it's military weapons testing, health care, socail reforms, etc. there is always some wasted money in new program development.
Although a missile might not reach NYC form North Korea I think it has been proven, in theory to practice, however, that missile-like objects can be used to hit their targets on the East coast.
Well, call me an airy-fairy optimist, but I think the best strategy would just to be nice to everyone so that no one would want to shoot missiles at us in the first place; or, in the case of North Korea, since you can't trust this guy, do everything in your power to stop his program before he has the weapons. Clinton was doing great! Bush dropped the ball and doesn't even know it.
Well, of course I'd like to keep my rose colored galsses on as well. Clinton was doing ok? I guess if whoring out the White House bedrooms to every Communist asshole who would fork out the cash is doing everything possible to protect the U.S. from crazy fucksticks then I'm getting out of hte Navy and opening up a White House replica.
"...do everything in your power to stop his program before he has the weapons."
Isn't that what we were trying to do in Iraq?
Oh, TK, I have missed you! You have a unique outrageousness tempered by your intelligence.
Personally, I can't think of a Clinton scandal that even approaches any of the recent news coming out of the White House. If you think having guests of questionable repute is tantamount to allowing North Korea to go from zero weapons to 6 or 8, well, that's your problem.
You know, at least Monica Lewinsky didn't have x-rated websites where you could rent her services for a press conference.
Yes, stopping Iraq from ever getting weapons was one of the rationales put forth by Bush. Unfortunately that was AFTER the invasion, because before it Bush and every administration spokesperson spoke in the present affirmative that Iraq in fact possessed these weapons.
Keeping Saddam from getting them did not require an invasion. Aggressive, UN-led inspections were revealing that Clinton's tactical strikes from 1998 wiped out the reminder of Hussein's stockpiles. The sanctions -- blighted by the food for oil scandal, or course -- did in fact have their principle intended outcome of barring Saddam from creating new weapons.
Oh, and PS, I really don't think missile defense would actually work, so it's money down the hole.
Post a Comment