WP: Scientists Raise Doubts About Missile Defense

[Nambe]

Washington Post

An extensive study by a national group of scientists raised serious doubts yesterday about the likely effectiveness of some weapons that President Bush is pursuing in his drive to develop a system for defending the United States against ballistic missile attack.

The study, by a 12-member group under the American Physical Society, the largest U.S. association of physicists, focused on a category of weapons intended to knock down enemy missiles soon after launch in their "boost phase." ---

--- the group's lengthy critique is certain to complicate administration efforts to win congressional support for boost-phase systems, on which Bush planned to spend nearly $1 billion in 2004 out of a total $9.1 billion proposed budget for missile defense. Appropriations committees in both chambers of Congress already have voted to slash by half or more a Bush request for $301 million to begin developing land- or sea-based boost-phase interceptors. ---

Ride Don’t Drive It’s Global Cool

[qandnotq]

1. absolutely insane waste of money

9/11 proved that you don't need a ballistic missile. all you need is a few boxcutters in the hands of a few zealots. or put a small nuke in a load of pot being smuggled across the border. we can't stop drug smuggling, so how could we possibly hope to stop a suitcase nuke? anyone firing a missile at this country might as well have 'obliterate me' written on it in big flashing lights. smuggle a nuke instead, and maybe we won't obliterate you. it's just fantastically idiotic to throw billions at the least likely threat. unless, maybe you're just trying to funnel a few billion to your cronies.

[I AM SPARTACUS]

5. let's see...Smirko's don't work, and the one's he says other folks have

...don't exist...sooooooo, why again, do we need the largest military spending increases in history???

[maggrwaggr]

2. my father worked in top-secret weapons development

all his career, both in and out of the military, and even though he's a total right-wing shrub supporter, he has always said that missile defense just won't ever work.

He's an engineer, and the guys who actually make this stuff know that it's impossible.

However to the politicians, it's the perfect boondoggle. It's a hugely expensive system, meaning you can give out huge contracts to your "friends" in the business, and they can spend years and spend billions "developing" it, only to have it never work.

It will constantly need to be "upgraded" and "improved" thus ensuring that it is a perpetual black hole of money-sucking business-enriching pork.

It's a no-brainer. You build any system, whatever it is, it has a limit as to how many missiles it can knock down. All the "enemy" has to do is send up a whole bunch of stuff which maxes it out. They don't even have to be missiles, just stuff.

A few missiles then manage to get through and then BOOM.

This is also the reason that it will simply create a whole new arms race. Everyone will want to have enough missiles to beat the system, whatever it is.

The scientists know this and have been trying to tell the politicians for years, but the politicians don't want to hear this.

They just keep using the "how can you NOT be for defending the country?" argument.

Just another reason to be pissed off (sigh)

[farmboxer]

3. Bush Is Not Pro-Military, He's Pro-Military Contractor!

Bush's Papa is a part of the Carlyle Group!

[Old and In the Way]

4. It's not about Defense, it's about Offense

A boondoggle to be sure, but I doubt that the technology will be to used to protect us against ICBMs. It will be used to disrupt the communication satellite infrastructure of our "enemies" which will provide us significant military/economic advantage to leverage abainst all other countries.

Miliarization of space is high on the list of the PNAC demands for America.