Fucking Ridiculous ANYWHERE: Really? A Missile-Base in Vermont

[cali]

I hate the fucking Pentagon.

This week, the Vermont news media published stories stating that the Pentagon is considering building a Ground-based Midcourse Defense base in Jericho, Vermont, a small town near Burlington and Montpelier. When people think about Vermont, Jericho is what people think of; wooded lands, dairy farms, older houses and a blend of Yankee families whose roots go back generations and newer residents looking for tranquility, beauty and a good place to raise their kids. There is no reasonable argument for a missile base in Jericho, Vermont. Indeed, there is no reasonable argument for this missile base to be built anywhere.

It was barely twenty years ago that the United States shut down most of its silos containing missiles because their reason for being no longer existed. Even if someone believes that terrorists or another country will mount a major attack on the United States, the likelihood of this type of missile defense having any use is near zero. There is one big reason for this proposed site. That reason is profit for the corporations involved. The construction of this site is nothing more than a transfer of public monies to private corporations. It is very similar to what sports team owners do when they convince a city to build a new stadium except that missile sites are obviously quite lethal and with no redeeming social or entertainment value.

If one takes a look at the components of the system the Pentagon wants to place in Vermont, they will see that, besides the grotesque nature of the language describing certain parts of the system, the companies that will profit from its construction are quite familiar. Here are the basics:

Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) — Raytheon
Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) — Orbital Sciences
Battle Management Command, Control and Communications (BMC3) — Northrop Grumman
Ground Based Radars (GBR) — Raytheon
Upgraded Early Warning Radars (UEWR) (aka PAVE PAWS) — Raytheon
Forward Based X-Band Radars (FBXB) –Raytheon

<snip>

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/13/a-missile-base-in-vermont/

<snip>

"It's wasted money," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont. "It's not going to make us any more secure whether it's in Vermont or anywhere else."

Leahy says the missiles are the wrong choice for Vermont and the country. He says the U.S. has spent more than $158 billion on the program since the Reagan administration and would rather see dollars spent on issues like veteran health care.

"In the real world, I defy you to find anybody who says this will work and say it unequivocally," Leahy said.

<snip>

http://www.wcax.com/story/23419039/pentagon-eyes-vermont-for-missile-defense-system

[Takket]

1. and people think...

that those on "welfare" getting a check for a few hundred dollars a month, is what is killing this country. for every dollar in personal welfare handed out we probably spend about $100,000 in corporate welfare, handing out contracts for things we don't even need.

[pangaia]

22. Pretty obvious, isn't, to anyone with more than half a brain.

Which means--- there must be an awful lot of half wits out there.

[Nye Bevan]

2. Are you saying that the US does not need any missiles anymore? (nt)

[cali]

3. I'm saying we don't need more missiles.

just like Senator Leahy is saying that.

Are you saying we do?

[sulphurdunn]

7. The US doesn't need

to continue spending billions of dollars for reasons economic and political on more weapons that add nothing whatsoever to national security.

[Stargazer09]

31. Well, that's not entirely true

Deterrence is still a necessary thing. I don't like it, but rest assured, other countries are still building their arsenals. We need the ability to strike back.

[sulphurdunn]

38. We already possess

the ability to strike back with overwhelming force. No nation on earth would dare launch a military strike against the mainland United States its possessions or allies without risking total annihilation, and they all know it. Continuing to squander the nations resources on military spending merely encourages the same behavior in other countries.

[RC]

44. Other countries are building their arsenals to defend against us,US.

If we would stop messing with other countries, they wouldn't feel the need to defend against us.
It is us, the United States that has military basses all over the world. No other country comes close.

[NCTraveler]

63. "Other countries are building their arsenals to defend against us,US."

Highly inaccurate statement. The US has almost no direct military involvement in most wars. Does Georgia build up its arsenal to defend against the US. Even when there is US military involvement they are often not building up their arsenal to defend against the US. Is Syria building up their arsenal to defend against the US?

[RC]

65. You do not get out much, do you?

II. More than 1000 US Bases and/or Military Installations

The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.

In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing’s 2002 Map 1 entitled “U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of ‘Permanent War’”, confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.

The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.

In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.



http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564

World Police man, or world bully? Why do we have so many military bases, especially in the Middle East? This 1000 are just the big bases. We have thousands of smaller ones in the Middle East alone.

[NCTraveler]

66. Get out often thank you.

Your original statement is highly inaccurate. Why is Syria building their arsenal? Why does Georgia constantly build up their arsenal? How about many African countries?

I don't think you understand most wars are not influenced by the US. Or involvement in most wars is non-existent or extremely limited.

[RC]

67. It depends on whether they have something we want.

You don't understand we often supply one or both sides in a conflict. Sometimes supplying some third country, so they can supply the arms and ammunition to a conflict. The CIA has been know to buy non US arms and outfitting one side in a conflict, so as to have deniability. How many governments have we toppled? Many countries arm themselves to defend against us. We have a reputation around the world, mostly not good.

[NCTraveler]

68. I am aware of all of that.

Pretty big change from your original claim. My original point about said claim and reasoning for that point is fully accurate.

[RC]

69. No change from the original claim. It all fits together.

We are using the self imposed, 'Worlds Policeman' to bully the world to do our bidding.

[dballance]

26. I believe we have enough missiles already.

As cali pointed out, even the senator from Vermont is not in favor of this project. Which is quite a red flag to it's approval when a senator from the state is not in favor of spending big, useless dollars in their state.

We have plenty of ammo to fight any conventional forces. Not that there are any of those forces threatening the US today. No other nation would seriously try to attack or invade the US. The counter offensive for doing such a thing would be the total destruction of that nation. You might want to Google "Hiroshima" and "Nagasaki" if you question my conclusion on that point. The US is the only power in the world that has unleashed nuclear weapons on our opponents in war. We, along with Russia and the former states of the USSR have more than enough weapons to destroy all human life on the Earth. So another missile base is irrelevant.

We, unfortunately, have spent far too much money on organizations like the NSA that have not yielded any real benefits. Another missile base is not really a good choice right now considering our financial situation.

Funding "Meals on Wheels" or pre-school for kids would be a far more effective use of our tax dollars.

[Cooley Hurd]

4. Missile bases aren't anything new in VT. On my way to St Albans...

...I used to pass thru Alburg, where there was an abandoned Atlas F2 missle base off of US 2 (down a road appropriately named "Missile Base Road&quot .

All that said, I think new missile bases are a bad idea. I agree with Sen Leahy - spend it on Veteran's benefits and healthcare. We have a whole new generation of men coming home broken by war.

[unhappycamper]

5. Unfortunately, Sen. Leahy is a big supporter of buying and basing F-35s in Burlington. n/t

[rrneck]

6. Nobody's going to shoot at us with an ICBM.

And if they did this boondoggle wouldn't do any good anyway.

[Stargazer09]

32. I wouldn't be so certain

I wouldn't be surprised if more of these bases start showing up nationwide.

[rrneck]

37. MAD worked in the twentieth century, it will work now.

That "Star Wars" crap is just a cash cow for the MIC.

[wercal]

52. I don't think MAD comes into play

The latest round of these things are meant to intercept missiles from either terrorists or maniac dictators. A few years ago, North Korea did some 'tests' and I remember a whole lot of people wondering if we were capable of shooting it down.

We didn't of course...the entire episode being sponsored by the Russians in an attempt to get us to turn on our RADARs and reveal capabilities.

People can argue about whether or not it works...or if its necessary (would a terrorist really use an ICBM)...but there is no equivalency to MAD.

I have no idea if the new missiles are necessary...but it leads to the question as to who is in charge. People on this thread are shaking their fists at Reagan....did electing Obama mean anything? Or is star wars on autopilot, never to be stopped?

[rrneck]

54. The logic is the same.

They nuke us, we nuke them twice as much. It won't matter what or how much. Nor will it matter if Star Wars works or not. In fact, it would be better for some if it doesn't.

The odds are still not much better than even we will have a proto fascist warmongering Republican in the white house if they get a nuke in here. Either way, the profit margins for the war profiteering business model have already been developed and tested. If Star Wars beats the attempt it'll be "they tried to nuke us, it's on!" or if it doesn't, "They vaporized Schenectady, it's double on!" The oligarchs will make the profiteering after 9/11 look like a pickpocket at a toga party.

And the whole thing could be averted with a couple of diplomats and a pallet of hundred dollar bills, but that won't make any money for the MIC.

[wercal]

55. I just don't see us nuking North Korea

I don't think there would be any support for killing thousands of starving civilians, who ate essentially being held hostage. This is why MAD no longer applies. Same goes for a nationless terrorist group.

[rrneck]

56. When they knocked down the WTC the jingoism was palpaple

and the two wars that ensued are evidence of that. Add a profit motive to the already existing fear and hate and imagine what a nuclear blast on the continental United States would do. A few 737's and a dozen box knives got us a three trillion dollar war. While exigent circumstances will play a large role either way, a heavily militarized North Korea right on the Chinese border might be just the ticket when the price of oil begins to seriously spike.

[wercal]

57. I have no doubt a North Korean attack would lead us to bombing them

...but I see no scenario where we would strike back with a nuclear weapon.

Mutually Assured Destruction worked because the Soviets knew they were an existential threat. They had the capacity to annihilate most of our major cities in a matter of hours...therefore they knew that even the launch (not even the impact) of one nuclear missile would bring massive retaliation.

North Korea is not an existential threat to the US. We would not respond moments after their launch with a devastating missile strike...we would launch a few air strikes. But even if we did have the mindset of nuclear retaliation...the leader of North Korea does not care. MAD presumes the leaders of both sides are sane, and don't want nuclear war. Unfortunately, North Korea doesn't fall into that category.

There is a discussion to be had about how effective star wars is...but we are a few decades out of the MAD scenario, and to depend on it as the ultimate defense is a head in sand mentality, IMHO.

As far as profit goes....the slogan for war profiteers should be 'food and fuel'. If troops are on the ground, they need both of these every day - at a substantial markup of course. That's where the money is. We aren't going to launch a nuclear strike for profit...we probably can't afford to replace any missiles that are fired anyway....and its a one time thing. No the big money is in sending carrier groups to linger all around the world, and building up 'green zones' in Iraq and Afghanistan. More troops equals more cash flow - and the duration can be measured in decades. So I don't think profit motive would lead to a nuclear retaliation, and is somehow embedded in a new MAD paradigm.

[rrneck]

58. North Korea is not an extential threat,

it's a business opportunity. Like I said, it doesn't matter how it happens, but the result will be to exploit the opportunity to control our competitors in competition for resources.

The last thing the MIC wants to do is feed troops. Boots on the ground is politically difficult and people are high maintenance. That's why drones are the next big thing. Technology is more profitable than people.

If there was any country on the planet with a nuclear target on it's back it's oil poor, national pariah, China supported North Korea. Our potential for irrational jingoism and its resulting carnage is already proven in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many Democrats voted for that one? We are the only country on the planet to use nuclear weapons to date, a large chunk of our defense capability is devoted to it, and our national history has surrounded the use of nukes for the last century. The question is not whether or not we will use them, but what it will take to make it happen. North Korea is a likely candidate.

[wercal]

59. Well we disagree

I really don't see a huge profit to be made by launching a few dozen nuclear missiles (compared to the gravy train that Iraq has been for example).

And I really don't see any scenario where we would launch against NK. Its a weapon that kills civilians...and its fairly well recognized that the civilians there are brainwashed and helpess.

[rrneck]

62. It's okay to disagree.

We're both just prognostigating.

[valerief]

8. But the filthy rich must get filthier. It's the most important thing in the world. nt

[treestar]

9. Where should they be?

New Hampshire?

[unhappycamper]

12. In a grave

with St. Ronnie.

[ljm2002]

13. I can't speak for cali...

...but I have to wonder if you missed the thread title:

Fucking Ridiculous ANYWHERE: Really? A Missile-Base in Vermont

[treestar]

45. Do you really think we can do without missile defense?

Really?

[ljm2002]

46. Your question was a non sequitur...

...give the thread's title.

Cali's thread title is: "Fucking Ridiculous ANYWHERE: Really? A Missile-Base in Vermont"

and your clever retort is to ask her where they SHOULD be.

Now I don't know about you, but I took cali's remarks to be about THIS installation of missile defense. She said nothing at all about whether we need SOME missile defense. Nor did I. I only pointed out that your question is a bit silly, since she had already stated they should not be ANYWHERE.

So as to your question, which is in fact another non sequitur but I'll go ahead and answer it anyway: No.

[treestar]

47. Well then if the issue is where, why not Vermont?

Why not the best location, strategically?

[ljm2002]

48. Are you really that dense?

Did you not get that the poster was against THIS missile defense installation being built ANYWHERE? In that context, can you not see that asking WHERE they should be built is a non sequitur?

I guess you really are than dense. I am through with this exchange. TTFN.

[treestar]

49. Pick which it is

No missile defense anywhere?

Or admit we need missile defense, just not in Vermont.

You're pretending I'm stupid is not working. You've tried to eliminate both issues that way. So this OP is about nothing?

[L0oniX]

21. Up Raytheon's ass?

[cali]

60. they shouldn't be anywhere.

[treestar]

61. that's absurd. We have to have missile defense

Other countries have nuclear weapons. Are you denying reality now?

[mtasselin]

10. military

Just another scheme from the military industrial complex.

[MineralMan]

11. Well, given the type of missiles you mentioned,

Vermont is sort of an ideal spot for them, if they are needed. Those missiles are designed to destroy an ICBM while it is in-flight. Since the only country really capable of launching such an attack is Russia, those missiles would use a polar flight pattern if the US is the target. So, Vermont is sort of ideally placed to launch such a defense.

Now, I don't think they're needed or will be needed in the future, but if they're going to put them somewhere, Vermont is the ideal location, being at the Northeast corner of the US. A system designed to destroy an ICBM while it is still in space does make sense, from a defensive point of view, since the warhead won't have gone through its arming sequence at that point, most likely. And that's what that missile system is designed to do.

As I said, I don't think such systems are needed, but Vermont is where I'd put them if I thought they were needed. For missiles launched from the other side of Russia, I'd put them in Washington state.

Polar trajectories.

[formercia]

15. Put the Interceptors next to the Alberta Tar Sands. n/t

[MineralMan]

16. Well, that's in Canada, not the USA.

That sort of won't work.

[pangaia]

27. Sure it will. Why not? :>)

[Stargazer09]

33. Agreed

I really think these are necessary, both on the east and west coasts.

Hate to say it, but things aren't as peaceful as they may seem.

[MineralMan]

35. Well, I think the ICBM threat is steadily diminishing,

rather than increasing. Today, nuclear weapon delivery systems seem to have taken another approach. While the US and Russia still have some ICBM capabilities, the technology is old and new weapons systems are making them even more obsolete.

I'm not seeing the need for defenses against them as a priority. Truly.

[formercia]

14. I live in Maine and wonder why our State wasn't chosen.

..because when, if it ever comes to Nuclear War, this proposed base will be #1 on the Target List, and the Fallout from the Nuclear Ground Bursts will likely drift Eastwards over NH and Maine. At least, in Maine, the Fallout will drift out over the Ocean. The second point is that Maine is the closest point to where a Strike is likely to come from. It's only a few Hundred Miles and a few Seconds closer, but it might mean all the difference in intercepting an attack.

I wish it would all go away. End of Bad Dream......

[MineralMan]

18. True. Maine would be even more appropriate.

I'm not sure why Vermont was chosen over Maine.

[L0oniX]

20. I agree. Maine is much more of a threat ....to Canada.

[MineralMan]

23. There is some question about whether Canada actually exists.

Not that I put much credence in that idea, but you never really know...

There is another theory that puts Maine in Canada. It's all confusing, really.

[pangaia]

39. Canada does in fact exist.

Or at least Toronto does (fortunately- think FOOD!!! And I pass Ft Erie, St Catherines, Hamilton, et al, on the way.

[Clown is Down]

24. Maine is being considered.

Federal property in mountains east of Rangeley is now one of the Pentagon's five options for an interceptor facility if one is built.

[MineralMan]

25. Ah, OK. I guess this is still in the early planning stages.

It's still unneeded, but one of those states is the most likely location. I'd add New Hampshire to the list.

[Clown is Down]

34. according to the story...

The other four sites being considered are Camp Ethan Allen in Vermont; Camp Ravenna Joint Military Training Center in Ohio; Fort Custer CTC in Michigan; and Fort Drum in northern New York.

I can't post a link for some reason. (probably because I am new and stupid) but the story is in all the online Maine newspapers. Kennebec Journal, Morning Sentinel, Portland Press Herald, etc.

[MineralMan]

36. Thanks. I'll go have a look.

[pangaia]

28. Because of the maple syrup, I expect.

[MineralMan]

30. Here in Minnesota, the maple syrup industry would

welcome the reduction of competition. It was a bad Spring here for syruping, besides. I didn't even tap my huge front yard maple tree this year. Maybe next Spring. I didn't want to stress the tree this year. Winter lasted far too long, and spring really never came.

Maybe next year.

[pangaia]

40. Sorry you had such a bad year.

Things should improve.

But you guys also have all those wonderful lakes. Great for portaging...

[another_liberal]

17. It has to be built . . .

If we do not prepare for an invasion from the planet Actourus what will we do when the invasion from Actourus arrives? In that light, doesn't this missile base seem thoroughly worthwhile?

It has to be built! It's either that or we surrender to the Actourians!

[pangaia]

29. I agree, 100%.

[L0oniX]

19. Breaking: Canada threatens to counter US agression with nuke missile base in Nova Scotia.

Maybe the missiles should be aimed at Raytheon.

[Clown is Down]

41. The attraction is people see this and think JOBS!

Where old cynics like me think TARGET!

[Thor_MN]

42. Same shit, different decade...

When I was in first grade, there was a missile base just down the road. Twelve Hiroshima's worth of nuclear tipped anti-aircraft missiles less than a mile from my elementary school. The Bomarc missiles had a range of about 250 miles, there was a string of bases along the Canadian border. Mine was just outside Duluth, Minnesota. You can still see the base (long decommissioned) here: http://goo.gl/maps/KvWJV The 28 missile sheds are visible in the lower right. My school is in the upper left.

Had they ever been used, I'm guessing that International Falls would no longer be known as "Icebox of the Nation" as it wouldn't exist. The war industry had us convinced that we had to be prepared to use nuclear devices over our own land to prevent the possible use of other nuclear devices in places not of our choosing.


I can't begin to imagine the total cost we have spent and are continuing to spend on Cold War defense. I have to imagine much of the war hawk rhetoric is funded by the companies that benefit from these expenditures. The insanity of being prepared to use nukes over our own people (ironic echos there..) is being replaced by preparing to defend against the country that we are partnering with rid another country of chemical weapons. I guess it's not supposed to make sense, just dollars.

[NickB79]

43. There's an old Nike missile base down the road from me

In the middle of bumfuck nowhere 30 miles south of St. Paul, Minnesota (near Northfield, if anyone knows where that is).

The old farmers by me say it was active back in the 50's through the 70's to shoot down incoming Soviet bombers that snuck over the North Pole to bomb the Twin Cities munition factories (lots of ammo was made for the military here back then, so we had strategic importance).

Now the thing just sits in the middle of cornfields, enclosed by wire gates, it's underground bunkers flooded with water.

[TomClash]

50. Why Vermont?

Who wants this there? Hmmm.

[gopiscrap]

51. No kidding

[Old Troop]

53. Military Base

Jericho already has a military base. The VT National Guard uses a camp there for training in mountain and winter warfare. It is also used by specialized troops from the active services very frequently. There is also a range complex used to test anti-aircraft weapons.

[didact]

64. I don't know..."Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle" is pretty badazz. Good name for a band!