Who Needs Missile Defense? We Do!

Top 2. Mar 15, 1999 11:25 AM

» BJohnson - Hi Brian.

Hi Brian.

I do think the issue will get bigger in Congress. Both the House and the Senate are poised for a long debate over the issue.

What is significant about this, as I tried to point out in my article, is that there has been a major reversal on part of the Clinton Administration as to the merits of missile defense.

As far as the American public, I am not sure that most Americans are terribly concerned about the possibilities of missile attack on the U.S. But that is probably because most are unaware of the true extent of the threat.

As more information on America's vulnerabilities come out, and as more nations like India and Pakistan enter the nuclear club, I believe more Americans will voice their concerns.

Bryan

-- posted by BJohnson

Top 3. Mar 15, 1999 12:55 PM

» Prometheus - Star Wars redux?

Bryan, what has changed since the Reagan years
that would make this any less a boondoggle than
the incredible waste of the Star Wars program?

We're not significantly closer to solving the
huge practical problems, nor are opponents any
less able to take the trivial countermeasures
that would be needed.

-- posted by Prometheus

Top 4. Mar 15, 1999 4:02 PM

» Lawhawk - The plans being forwarded are scaled back versions of the Star W

The plans being forwarded are scaled back versions of the Star Wars plans of the 1980s that were based more on science fiction than science reality. Today's ABM system would be a modified progeny of the Patriot missile system - a system that would have to be seriously reworked to extend the intercept range and kill percentages to pose as a credible defense.

For all the money that could be spent on an ABM system, it still does nothing for anyone who has the ability to build/create and ship this into the US covertly. These items are not building sized - they are small enough to fit into packing crates and could be brought to the US as cargo. No amount of money could be spent on ABM that would protect against this threat except manpower to search all ships and cargo entering this country. The threat from biological and chemical weapons is even greater as those weapons are even more concealable than nuclear since nuclear weapons could leave trace radioactivity that could be tracked at distance.

As for the assertion that a credible seabased system for ABM is closer to reality - this is based on the assertion that the Ageis missile defense system could be modified to engage targets at greater range. However, the heart of the Ageis system is the same as that of the Patriot system - a phased array radar system. The major hurdles are a 100% kill and 100% engagement rate and neither is attainable at present nor is it believed capable of being attained at any time in the foreseeable future.

-- posted by Lawhawk

Top 5. Mar 16, 1999 12:08 PM

» BJohnson - Did I Say Star Wars??

Below is an article from the Washington Post published March 10, 1999 covering the Heritage Foundation's Team B report on missile defense.

Sea-Based Missile Defense Promoted
Navy Could Shield U.S., Study Says
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 10, 1999; Page A16

A group of defense experts who favor Navy ships to protect the United States against missile attack assert in a new study that the sea-based approach would be faster and cheaper than the land-based system envisioned by the Clinton administration.

The study, sponsored by the conservative Heritage Foundation, represents a renewed effort to promote the sea-based option over strong administration objections. A recent Pentagon review concluded that expanding the Navy's Aegis fleet to shield all 50 states would cost as much as $19 billion, far more than the $10.5 billion the administration has budgeted to build the land-based alternative as early as 2005.

But the 14 retired officers and former officials, led by Henry F. Cooper Jr., who directed Pentagon antimissile programs in the Bush administration, argue that the administration has underestimated the cost and time required for a land-based system. They contend that the sea-based option could be deployed within four years for less than $8 billion, and then should be augmented quickly by a network of space-based interceptors and lasers.

"The most expeditious, least expensive way to provide an effective defense against ballistic missile attack is to deploy sea-based defenses first, followed by space-based defenses," said the group's report, which is scheduled for release today.

The report updates a 1995 study done by many of the same experts and frequently cited by congressional Republicans who have joined the push for a sea-based national missile defense. The earlier study pegged initial deployment at $3 billion. The new study says $3 billion would be required just to develop new interceptors to launch from ships and intercept intercontinental enemy missiles; another $5 billion would be needed, the report says, for an associated space-based sensor system to detect and track the incoming warheads.

Unlike the Pentagon study, which factored in the cost of three to six new Aegis ships that would be reserved solely for missile defense, the Heritage report assumes no need for such a "dedicated" fleet.

The Navy already has spent more than $1 billion on a plan for turning its fleet of Aegis cruisers and destroyers into mobile platforms for launching high-altitude interceptors.

But the project is aimed at guarding troops in the field -- not people in the United States -- and is geared to counter medium-range missiles, not the faster and more sophisticated ocean-spanning variety. Senior Pentagon officials remain skeptical that the Navy can mount even this more modest antimissile shield by the projected 2007 deployment date.

Moreover, expanding the use of interceptors aboard ships to guard U.S. skies would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Although the administration has indicated it may seek treaty amendments to permit a land-based system, officials say the sea-based option would require even more significant revisions.

The Heritage study argues that efforts to comply with the treaty have frustrated U.S. efforts to develop workable anti-missile systems. Without treaty constraints on missile speed and sources of sensor data, the report says, the planned Navy system could be expanded into a much more effective weapon.

-- posted by BJohnson

Top 6. Mar 24, 1999 2:25 AM

» not_him_again - Interesting..

One thing I find interesting is that the liberal left of spend, spend, spend, fame now is so concerned over the cost of a system to defend US citizens from nuclear attack.

Now if some of them could just see how much our "peacekeeping" policies are costing us (and the bill will go higher with Kosovo), maybe, just maybe, the money to defend their own people could be found.

I know it's tough, Bill, but you really should remember you're supposed to defend America first. Just repeat to yourself "We have no vital interests in Kosovo, and we should not be risking a confrontation with Russia for another country's internal affairs". Say it several times every hour, because if I have it my way, many more Americans will be doing the same. Take care of your own people first, Bill... that is what you were elected by some misguided voters to do.

That is, of course, if anyone believes in the concept of "our people" anymore...

-- posted by not_him_again

Top 7. Mar 24, 1999 6:45 AM

» Gottlieb - Article on ABM

Hey folks,

I wrote an article some weeks back about the anti-ballistic missile system, why we shoujld probably build one, what kind we should build, and how it would affect our relationship with China.

Go read it here.

-- posted by Gottlieb

Top 8. Jul 4, 1999 11:55 AM

» LarryW_4 - By Way of Explaining Kosovo ...

Based on my reading of Al Gore's Earth in the Balance and Ehricht's The Population Explosion, I believe there is a politcally sound reason for beating up on the Serbs (other than the obvious Wag the Dog scenario).

Al (and probably Bill) think in terms of the global environment, and Al states plainly that social justice is a necessary precursor to good stuardship of the environment. Hence, we enforce justice, like good cops. This is not for Americans only; it is for the world.

We learn in Ehrlicht's work, with which Gore is evidently familiar, that minimizing our kind's impact on the environment requires improving the Third World's standard of living at the expense of the industrialized nations.

Hence, if you are a U.S. citizen, a vote for Al is a vote for perpetual war and a big pay cut.

-- posted by LarryW_4

Top 9. Jul 6, 1999 12:10 PM

» Prometheus - <i>One thing I find interesting is that the liberal left of spen

One thing I find interesting is that the liberal left of spend, spend, spend, fame now is
so concerned over the cost of a system to defend US
citizens from nuclear attack.

Brian's demonizations fall flat in the face of
both logic and history.

Sensible people want to spend their money on things
that are worthwhile. If "Star Wars" or it's
undead offspring rising from their graves ever
had a hope of being useful, they might be worth
the money. But even if it worked, an enemy would
just smuggle weapons by the same routes drugs are
smuggled tons at a time. Such an easily circumvented
system is worthless.

As for big-spending liberals, allow me to remind
you that Clinton and Johnson have been the most
recent presidents with balanced budgets.

-- posted by Prometheus

Top 10. Jul 26, 1999 3:48 AM

» not_him_again - And allow me to remind you that a balanced budget does not mean

And allow me to remind you that a balanced budget does not mean someone is not a big spender. If taxes are up to pay for unnecessary spending, the balanced budget does not refute the charge of big spending.

-- posted by not_him_again