Sea-Based Missile Defense System Works, but Will Congress Fund It?

Human Events ^ | 6/16/2006 | Baker Spring

[Paul Ross]

Congress needs to butt in. The Executive Branch is obviously playing to an agenda that does not equal actual missile defense.

[corkoman]

Do we really want a global missile defense or a national/hemispheric defense?

I want the euroweenies to be concerned about things otherwise they will be just as likely to continue spitting in our faces as usual.

[Paul Ross]

Do we really want a global missile defense or a national/hemispheric defense?

It's not necessarily either/or. We can have both. The nice thing about Aegis is that they aren't "set in concrete" they can move about, be positioned into smothering hot zones, and also provide a useful early boost-phase knock-down of ICBMs. For tertiary defense, it would be possible to have them around the periphery of the US as well, with intercepts of SCUDS, cruise missiles and incoming ICBM RVs as well.

The latter-capability has yet to be demonstrated however...Xlinton killed the development of the faster version of the SM-3 which might have been able to robustly accomplish that. Re-activating the old Sprint missile system for our outer-periphery states would likely also be a good supplemental coverage. Nuclear Detonations would then at least occur over the sea.

[coconutt2000]

Last month, the Navy demonstrated the wisdom of this approach by successfully testing modified versions of the AEGIS system and its accompanying Standard Missile-2 Block IV surface-to-air missile against a target ballistic missile off Hawaii.

I remember only hearing about the failures in the MSM. /sarc

[coconutt2000]

I'm also in favor of ground based defenses closer to home to begin with. Yes, we need sea based platforms as well, but those would be best used as a mobile reserve to plug any gaps in coverage, or to extend coverage to cover an ally.

[Sundog]

The background noise from a high-altitude nuclear burst renders the Aegis systems inoperative for about a half hour. It is an interesting problem.

[The Duke]

Somehow I don't think our "owners" in China would allow this technology to be developed.

[Paperpusher]

Could some of these be installed in fixed positions, say along the coast, near large cities.

[familyop]

"Congress, however, should not leave it to the Missile Defense Agency to determine how to proceed."

Congress would shut all anti-ballistic missile defense down in favor of funding anti-family, social engineering program offices in their states.

[Mr. Silverback]

The Executive Branch is obviously playing to an agenda that does not equal actual missile defense.

Backup for that statement?

[Mr. Silverback]

Somehow I don't think our "owners" in China would allow this technology to be developed.

You're funny.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. Thanks for the ping!

[The Duke]

You're funny.

I didn't intend to be "funny". Was I misinformed when told that China ultimately owns vast numbers of US mortgages?

Didn't they purchase the Clinton administration with cold, hard campaign cash? Don't you think that's a gift that's probably still giving?

Tell me it ain't so!

[HiTech RedNeck]

This system has to be fitted to battleships, no? I'd hope it could be fitted in the future to submarines, too.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Oh joy, then all the attackers need to do is save a few extra nukes to make noise with.

[Mr. Silverback]

What's funny is that you think China will be able to determine the equipment deployed by the United States Navy. That, sir, is a first class kneeslapper.

[Sundog]

Really redefines the use of nukes, doesn't it?

[Sundog]

No, They are just entitled to the technical details of it.

[The Duke]

What's funny is that you think China will be able to determine the equipment deployed by the United States Navy.

Sorry, I thought China actually bought something for their campaign contributions to Bill Clinton.

But what do I know, I'm only a Reagan-era defense industry analyst(?)

[Sundog]

Suppose Israel develops an Arrow SAM system. Suppose America donates 45 million dollars to the cause. Israel reserves the right to sell the technology to China. They always have and always will. We might get some dandy missile systems to use, but nothing the enemy doesn't already have access to. When our surveillance plane collided with that Chi-com jet, it was carrying Israeli made air to air missles, made by Rafael. They are reverse-engineered versions of the Sparrow missles we supplied to them.