Posted on 09/14/2001 4:11:52 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
With smoke still billowing like a funeral pyre from the ruins of the World Trade Center, cries could be heard for vengeance against an unseen and unknown enemy who left no return address. Hunting down and punishing the "folks" who did these things will test the nation's patience, although it is far more important to be careful than to be quick. The thousands of innocent dead deserve justice, which tempers rage with reason. Should reliable information emerge proving the culpability of Osama bin-Laden and his protectors in the Taliban, the United States is fully capable of dealing with them.
In the days to come, we will hear much speculation about who is to blame for this atrocity, and fingers are likely to be pointed not only abroad but at home. The airwaves may soon be filled with torrents of nonsense rhetoric from politicians attributing fault to their partisan adversaries, speaking as if they knew how such an attack could have been prevented. They didn't, and they don't.
For the moment-and probably for some weeks to come-the appropriate attitude for citizens is to support the efforts of government officials at all levels to cope with the bloody consequences. If past American responses to acts of terrorism and war are any guide, the President can expect an upsurge of patriotic support; let us hope he uses that enhanced authority wisely.
Wisdom, in the wake of a momentous disaster, means the questioning of prior assumptions, prejudices and policies. Clearly, we will have to find ways to enhance the security of our society that don't destroy the liberty we seek to defend. But there are other issues to be considered. For George W. Bush and his administration, the ideas and initiatives that must now be reconsidered can be described as unilateralism. The notion of the United States as an impregnable fortress, with little need for treaties and allies, has become outdated again in a single day.
The most conspicuous symbol of unilateralism is the missile shield, or national missile defense, whose irrelevance to the present international realities has suddenly been revealed amid blood and fire. The so-called shield is, as one critic has said, "a weapon that won't work against a threat that doesn't exist." What happened on Sept. 11 demonstrated irrefutably that any enemy determined to inflict mass destruction upon America can do so without ballistic missiles. To insist on that proposal-at a projected cost of $100 billion-would be to waste time, money and scientific talent, when all those resources would be better spent on effective domestic and international security measures.
The apparent capacity of terrorists to penetrate our airports and airspace forces us to think about the unthinkable. If an enemy can bring down the World Trade Center and destroy a substantial part of the Pentagon, why would we assume that they could not someday drop a nuclear device on the doorstep of the White House? Attack by such low-tech means, instead of a high-tech rocket, would elude the missile shield. The only plausible defense against terrorist use of atomic weapons is to secure nuclear materials around the globe from those who might misuse them.
Yet so far, the Bush administration has shown little interest in the programs created for that purpose, notably in the former Soviet Union. Federal officials ignored recommendations by a bipartisan panel to sharply increase funding of those efforts, and even considered cutting them. For a tiny fraction of the price of the useless missile shield, the unguarded weapons and fissionable elements in Russia could be removed from danger.
Unfortunately, international cooperation has not been the outstanding characteristic of foreign policy in this administration or among its supporters in Congress, to say the least. Their contrarian viewpoint has been expressed in contempt for American obligations under the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, as well as for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that was so carefully designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Treaties and alliances, they appear to believe, are for weaklings and dreamers, when in fact such agreements are essential to our own future security. Preventing proliferation ought to be the paramount objective of American policy, and anything that destabilizes or deflects that aim must be avoided.
If we are really determined to safeguard our cities and citizenry, maintenance of our overseas alliances is the strongest shield. A jetliner could just as easily be hijacked from a foreign airport, and then flown into an American target, as from Logan or Dulles. Rather than aggravating our differences with allies in Europe and elsewhere, the administration should consider ways to strengthen those ties. Many of those nations have considerably more experience with terror on their soil than we do; their assistance in combating what may become a continuing assault is vital.
Improved relations with our traditional allies may also help us to convince them that a more aggressive approach to terrorist organizations is both realistic and necessary. The likelihood of success against the forces responsible for this extraordinarily well-executed crime will be considerably greater if civilized nations are coordinated with equal precision. The ability of the United States to lead depends entirely upon the confidence with which other nations regard us.
These suggestions scarcely reflect the present philosophy of the Bush administration-with the possible exception of Secretary of State Colin Powell, whose influence has been waning since the day he was appointed. But Mr. Bush wouldn't be the first Republican President to change course when confronted with previously misunderstood realities. His father's administration at first coddled Saddam Hussein, and then led an allied expedition against Iraqi aggression. Ronald Reagan vowed to build an even more ambitious version of the missile defense, to the horror of our allies, and then abandoned that mirage to negotiate historic agreements with the Soviet Union.
In this tragic moment, Mr. Bush too can seize an opportunity to correct his administration's course. All Americans should wish him the wisdom to do so.
You may reach Joe Conason via email at: jconason@observer.com.
As you're such an expert on missile defense, perhaps you would be good enough to explain to us lesser mortals exactly what features of the current NMD architecture are lacking, from a technical standpoint. Please keep it non-technical.
Well said!! How true!
Bump to you JH2
--Boris
The primary reason that NMD is a waste of money is because it is not being developed to meet real-world conditions. Every test conducted, and every test planned (including post-"deployment") do not include the types of countermeasures that any ICBM-capable state would deploy as part of a missle attack.
You would think that conducting these tests under such simplified and unrealistic conditions would at least result in a good testing track record, right? Wrong. Even the last successful test was rigged by putting a homing beacon in the simulated attack vehicle.
Another major problem with the proposed NMD solution is that it is only designed with the existing missle states in mind, and is geared to be specifically effective against their warheads. But the supposed threat is against so-called "rogue" nations who are still developing their own technology. NMD, as proposed, will not be able to intercept those weapons.
Overall, the program has another major flaw. There is no independent review process with any authority to address problems with the value and validity of the tests conducted. The program is not based on science, it is based on wishful thinking that ignores the real-world variables. After moving from an R&D scenario to a develop-to-deploy scenario, this problem only intensifies.
You cannot conduct effective research if the only people who can call the shots are advocates of the technology, or companies that stand to make a buck (actually, billions and billions of bucks) by building it.
Perhaps I did overstate my case slightly, in the sense that NMD might conceivably work is allowed to be developed as technology should be -- with scientific principles. But developed as government pork, the system has as much chance of working as a national health plan.
NMD is a black hole fiscally, and maybe a black hole technologically. As recent events have demonstrated, this may not be the time to squander money on pipe dreams and contractors who have -- I repeat -- defrauded this country on missle defense programs in the past.
Vaudine
Probably no modifications would be needed. A commercial airliner is a much larger and slower target than a ballistic missile.
The man's an imbecile.
Check your facts. The latest test was of the interceptor's terminal guidance package only. Do you understand? The terminal guidance package ONLY. The beacon was used to get the interceptor in the ballpark so that the terminal guidance package could take over and hit the missile, which it did. The interceptor did NOT use the beacon to hit the missile.
Another major problem with the proposed NMD solution is that it is only designed with the existing missle states in mind, and is geared to be specifically effective against their warheads. But the supposed threat is against so-called "rogue" nations who are still developing their own technology. NMD, as proposed, will not be able to intercept those weapons.
Totally illogical. How can you say NMD won't work against a type of missile that you admit doesn't exist yet? Do you have the design specs for them?
HOTLINK ==>> AIRLINE SAFETY- Freeper suggestions- Do's and Don't's
No kidding.
in the sense that NMD might conceivably work is allowed to be developed as technology should be -- with scientific principles. But developed as government pork, the system has as much chance of working as a national health plan.
Your categorical statement is one of faith, not fact. What evidence do you have that the current NMD program is NOT being conducted scientifically? Rigged tests? We are at a very low state of technical readiness -- one must crawl before one walks. Just because countermeasures exist now that are not accounted for in potential NMD architectures does not mean that such measures cannot be envisioned or developed. If by "independent scientific review" you mean NRC committees or "experts" from the Federation of American Scientists, don't make me laugh -- these guys are nothing but political ideologues, dressed up as "technical experts." If there's one thing we should have been taught by the twentieth century, it's that the phrase "it can't be done" ought to be used with extreme caution. A smarter move might be to avoid using it all together.
As for your comments on government "pork," they might be applicable to numerous, failed social mega-programs, but such "pork" has had some considerable success in the technical arena -- the Manhattan Project, Apollo, and the Panama Canal, to give just a few examples.
The simple fact is that the Constitution charges the federal government to defend the country against ALL threats. We should prepare for the terrorist threat -- chemical, biological, nuclear -- and future missile attack threats. And NMD (despite the claims of even some of its advocates) will not be deployed solely against the threat of "rogue nations," unless you include the PRC in that category.
And I do.
Let us remember that Clinton changed long standing laws which allowed Loral to sell a missile guidance system to the Chinese. Who are the Chinese trading with now? The Afghans -- our enemies. The stupidity of the American press and TV commentators is overwhelming. I can't take it any longer.
I saw Blitzer try to do the same with Sen. Dodd (D-CT). Dodd blew him off. Of course, political reality will not stop "journalists" from trying to form public opinion.
I guess it was just a figment of my imagination that the Chinese have walked away with all of our research.
I guess they'll be surprised when they find out nothing works!
I suppose they'll be asking the Clintons and the DNC for their money back.
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.