Pointed Questions on Missile Defense System

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/12/politics/12MISS.html?hp

As early as July, silos in Alaska could be filled with three-stage interceptors meant to destroy incoming ballistic missiles with the help of ground- and space-based sensors. It would be the first time the nation has had a system for destroying warheads aimed at American soil since the short-lived Safeguard program in the 1970's.

But for now, the system's credibility is under attack. With the Bush administration requesting $10.2 billion for missile defense in the 2005 fiscal year alone, officials on the project faced intense questioning at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday.

Democrats on the panel expressed doubt about the wisdom of moving ahead with a project so vast and complicated that it will not receive full operational testing until the first interceptors are placed on alert and the sensors are scanning the skies for targets.

"Standing up there and saying, this is a deployed system that will protect this country against a real threat stretches my imagination," said Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island.

[wuushew]

1. To bad Kerry supports missile defense

Senator Kerry is in favor of a missile defense system, but he opposed the Bush administration's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, as well as its current plans for an early deployment of missile defense capabilities. In answer to a question posed by Peace Action, "Do you support the development of a national missile defense?" Kerry asserted his support for "an effective defense against ballistic missiles that is deployed with maximum transparency and consultation with U.S. allies and other major powers."<12> In a floor statement following Bush's 2001 speech on missile defense and the ABM Treaty, Kerry called missile defense a "response of last resort," that is "only one part of a comprehensive national security strategy."<13> He stressed that the ABM Treaty could be amended, "but to abandon it all-together is to welcome an arms race that will make us more vulnerable, not less."<13> Senator Kerry voted for the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 (passed, 97-3) and in 2000 voted for the failed Durbin Amendment that would have required real world testing of missile defense systems and the establishment of an independent testing review panel.<14,15>

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040216.htm

[Sinistrous]

7. Too bad you included quotes from Kerry's position on the issue.

They show that he is in favor of a system with characteristics completely different and fielded under completely different parameters than the bush boondoggle.

Kerry asserted his support for "an effective defense against ballistic missiles that is deployed with maximum transparency and consultation with U.S. allies and other major powers."<12> In a floor statement following Bush's 2001 speech on missile defense and the ABM Treaty, Kerry called missile defense a "response of last resort," that is "only one part of a comprehensive national security strategy."<13> He stressed that the ABM Treaty could be amended, "but to abandon it all-together is to welcome an arms race that will make us more vulnerable, not less."<13> Senator Kerry voted for the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 (passed, 97-3) and in 2000 voted for the failed Durbin Amendment that would have required real world testing of missile defense systems and the establishment of an independent testing review panel.<14,15>

In other words, Kerry is in favor of a REAL missile defense, prefaced by the necessary diplomatic efforts and fielded in such a way that it enhances, rather than hinders our security. That is the total opposite of what Precious Leader is ramming down our throats.


edit: spelling

[BEZARK]

2. The Patriot Missiles Stopped NOT ONE SCUD

The DIVAD weapon system had to be tested against a TETHERED helicopter to get it to shoot anything down, and was later abandoned as unusable after huge investment. It's not likely a missile defense system could RELIABLY do a thing.

[david_vincent]

4. On CNN today, some Republican wonk actually said

"How do you expect to win the war on terror without Patriot missiles?"
His comment went unchallenged, but I, for one, was amazed and disgusted.

[rman]

8. certainly won't stop kamikaze pilots, dirty bombs, antrax letters

yet the missile defense system is officially part of the war on terror as outlined in the National Securities Strategy. that same document states terrorist use unconventional weapons, which is cited as a major reason why so called 'preemptive war' is warranted.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

[74dodgedart]

11. Actually the Patriots are preety good at shooting down planes

Shot sown a couple of friendlies during the Iraq invasion. Unfortunately, the Patriots confused planes for missiles ("software glitch" was official explanation.)

Those incidents alone, should be reason not to deploy the system without complete and comprehensive testing.

[jayfish]

3. Anyone Remember "Brilliant Pebbles"?

How much have we spent on this boondoggle already? They should be working hard on a high rate of fire EM rail weapon. This missile stuff will never work.

Jay

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. Pointed Questions?

The only question is who would ever be stupid enough to go along with this nonsense. This is the biggest waste of money that the world has ever seen.

[Tom Kitten]

6. Maybe

It's a "faith-based missile defense program related activity" they're talking about...

[underpants]

9. If only we can get homing beacons in all the missiles in the world

then we'd be better off.

We abandoned teh ABM so they could pass this money along to the military contractors.

[underpants]

10. I have a pointed question:Are we down to just one system now?

As of 1999 (I believe) both the Air FOrce AND the Navy were each working on their own systems, TRW Raytheon and the like got to sell not just one set of equipment and technology for something that will never work but TWO!!!!!

BTW-Gen. Meyers was appointed to hs position becasue the has backed this waste fraud and abuse from the beginning.

[struggle4progress]

12. Recent issue of Physics Today ...

discussed ICBM interception problem; analysis worded pleasantly but the bottom line (if I remember correctly) was something like: you have to intercept them within 500 mi or so of the original launch or you won't know trajectory well enough to get to the missile in time.


Incredibly difficult problems. Billions for defense industry but not one iota of sense.

[jpak]

13. Aside from the question "does it work"

Critical components of proposed NMDS (like the X-band radar on Shemya Island) would be highly vulnerable to conventional or nuclear attack.

Moreover, the system was not designed defend itself. It could not shoot down warheads targetting the interceptor silos, radars and ground-based communication facitlites in Alaska.

The system could also be rendered inoperable by detonating nuclear warheads in the upper atmosphere.

This would ionize large volumes of the "battle space" and render radar-based warhead tracking systems (like the X-band radar) useless.

This thing won't work - ever.

It's nothing more than crass political prop for the Lying Crook Bush Campaign.