Posted on 10/03/2004 8:20:09 PM PDT by sruleoflaw
By Steve Wampler
It didn't take Saddam Hussein long to retaliate.
On March 20, 2003, coalition forces fired a round of cruise missiles at a suspected Hussein meeting site in Baghdad. A short time later, air raid sirens sounded in northern Kuwait at Camp Champion, where 3,000 to 4,000 U.S. soldiers were based.
At about 12:30 p.m., the cry came over the loudspeaker, "Dynamite, Dynamite, Dynamite" meaning "this is a real attack"). "Scuds inbound from southern Iraq."
Karl Zinsmeister, an embedded reporter and the editor-in-chief of The American Enterprise magazine, joined the soldiers in throwing on his gas mask and chemical protective suit, then rushing into the Scud bunker. Depending on where they were launched, the Scud missiles would take between three and 13 minutes to hit the camp.
Minutes later, the loudspeaker crackled to life again. Though the announcer had on his own gas mask and his voice was muffled, the announcement was understandable and good news: "Missile destroyed."
About an hour later, the initial attack was repeated in almost every way. And again came the welcome news: "Missile destroyed."
"The Patriot system that knocked down these two missiles has been harshly attacked by defense critics for years; more generally, skeptics have savaged the entire concept of missile defense, sneering that the prospect of hitting one missile with another missile is a pipe dream," Zinsmeister said. "Well, those of us who spent mid-March in the Kuwaiti desert are here to tell you ballistic missile defense works.
"Certainly U.S. soldiers think highly of the Patriots. They've learned to trust and love the protective umbrella that the U.S. military now stretches over critical military arenas and nearby cities," Zinsmeister added.
In the hours to come, the Patriot missile defense batteries would also knock down another two incoming Scud missiles.
Given that the soldiers were in a concentrated mass, each Scud could have easily killed a dozen or even more soldiers, said Baker Spring, a missile defense expert at The Heritage Foundation. A Scud attack on the Dhahran Army barracks in Saudia Arabia in February, 1991 killed 28 military personnel and injured 97.
Though American soldiers now rely on the Patriot missile defense system, the United States military would not have this protection if Sen. John Kerry, the Democrat Party presidential nominee, had his way. During his 20-year Senate career, Kerry has repeatedly opposed or sought cutbacks in the Patriot system, the sea-based Aegis cruiser missile defense system and national missile defense in general.
Unfortunately, national missile defense is one of the sleeper issues of the current presidential election. Kerry strongly opposes the program, preferring to base America's national security on the paper of international treaties.
During the first Bush and Clinton administrations, Kerry voted time after time to reduce or freeze spending on both national missile defense and theater defense systems, such as the Patriot. He has voted against funding missile defense at least 50 times in the Senate.
With equal vigor, President Bush has supported missile defense. In late 2001, Bush announced his intention for the United States to withdraw from the antiquated 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty with the now defunct Soviet Union.
It was an action Henry Kissinger, the main architect of the original ABM treaty, had endorsed, saying the treaty was obsolete. "Deliberate vulnerability, when the technology is available to avoid it, cannot be a strategic objective, cannot be a political object and cannot be a moral objective of any American President," Kissinger said.
Bush has also started construction of an emergency missile defense system that will be deployed by the end of this year. In July, a three-stage interceptor rocket was installed at Fort Greely, Alaska, with five more interceptors due to be installed. Another four are to be deployed at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
Five of the last eight U.S. missile defense tests have been successful. Given the ever-present threat of missiles fired from ships at sea, as well as the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles by rogue terrorist states, such as Iran and North Korea, it is critical to develop defensive systems.
Iran is thought to be about a year away from possessing nuclear weapons and earlier this year Tehran announced that it has allocated $1 billion to resume developing long-range missiles that can reach targets in Europe and the U.S. North Korea is developing new ballistic missiles that can carry nuclear warheads and may have sufficient range to hit the U.S., according to Jane's Defense Weekly.
Though Kerry has branded missile defense as a "mythology" and a "fantasy," America's allies in the Pacific -- Japan and Australia -- see things differently.
The Japanese government has given the go-ahead for deployment of a joint U.S.-Japanese missile defense system that would protect Japan from a North Korean attack. Australia announced in December that it would participate in the U.S. missile defense program.
The November election will determine whether America has a president who supports missile defense, or an opponent who seeks to undermine missile defense at every turn. In the 1990's, Bill Clinton squandered eight years by stalling the program and cutting its budget by 80 percent.
Today, as terrorists target school children and rogue states rush to arm themselves with nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles, does it make sense to choose John Kerry's course of "deliberate vulnerability?"
_________________________________________ Wampler hosts a Northern California radio talk show heard Sunday nights at 8 p.m. and Saturdays at 3 p.m. on KCBC (770 AM). He holds a master’s degree in political science from the University of Kent in Canterbury, England.
Americans should make no mistake
This one isn't !
Bump for a truthful read
False choice. The assumption in your argument is that we should only defend ourselves against the 'greatest' threat because only the greatest threat is likely to happen. Stated explicitly, the assumption is obviously wrong.
The question is, is it a substantial threat? Since China and NK either have or will soon have ballistic missles capable of hitting Hawaii, Japan, Alaska and the West coast, it is a substantial threat, regardless whether it is the 'greatest' threat.
As a Chinese general pointed out during the Clinton years, would the US trade LA for Taiwan? Good question. Without missle defense, that colors all our actions when the inevitable invasion of Taiwan takes place. With missle defense, the entire strategic equation is changed.
I suppose that depends on whether or not critical social/strategic/economic/political/ targets are within the range of an intercontinental ballistic missle tipped with even a moderately sized nuclear payload belonging to a rogue nation and/or psychopathic dictator.
No matter what - with an effective defensive missle shield that could at least reduce (and potentially negate) that threat, operational resources could be directed towards other priorities.
Complete what is achievable now and move on the next one...
Just my thoughts...
First let me say welcome aboard Fatty, member since October 1.
The US is facing a myriad of threats.
Russia still has missiles, and as the article points out, ship-launched missiles are a serious threat. A North Korean "cargo" ship is more than big enough to hold several missiles. Would you rather that we retaliate for the loss of San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Los Anglese and San Diego or would you rather that we shoot down as many of the incoming missiles as possible and retaliate for the ones that got through?
Even though other threats may be more imminent, a defense based on only countering the top three immediately promotes #4 to the top.
In a few years, China will represent a grave ICBM threat. I would rather have the R&D phase over and a massive defense force in place by then.
When it comes to defense, you can pay now in gold, or pay later--in blood.
In the hands of nations like North Korea and Iran, intercontinental ballistic missiles are a large threat. But as Ambassador Cooper stressed on my program, there are other ways, terrorists can use missiles. Let's say a ship -- unmarked, flying no nation's flag -- pulls 300 miles off the coast of California and unloads a SCUD missile loaded with nuclear or biological payloads. What happens then? I would suggest that missiles outfitted with these payloads are a HUGE PROBLEM. And this problem will not be addressed by John Kerry. He hates missile defense and love treaties with tyrants.
You know... it really isn't much of a threat until there's a ballistic missile screaming down on your home town. =(
I mean, is burglary really a threat in your neighborhood? Even if it isn't, a neighborhood watch is still a good idea.
Thanks for the ping!
Sorry her too, I am a former engineer who personally worked off the errors in the design and witnessed several successful tests. (Plus many sucessful simulations run on the computer with the flight and seeker software.) Lots of success here against a lot of threats. Also software upgradable so that new threats can be added.
Thew systems can be overwhelmed by a launch of (classified number) of strikes, but will work well against enemies who only have a few. So relax, right now the systems protect troop deployments and cities, soon THAAD will protect a state size area and finally the NMD will protect a country size area.
And note about cost, the cost of a successful strike against one city would pay for the system. Now are there other threats that need time and money too? Yes, this is the nature of the enemy until they are rooted out and gone.
This is an important issue. Apart from ballistic missile defense, how do you stop missiles fired from ships off our coast. A missile with a nuclear payload could make 9/11 pale in significance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.