Joe Conason: No Vast Missile Shield Could Have Prevented This

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 The notion of the United States as an impregnable fortress, with little need for treaties and allies, has become outdated again in a single day.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.

With all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about.

The only independent reviewer of NMD so far has been Philip Coyle, the Pentagon's director of testing and evaluation, hardly a political idealogue. And he's done a very good job, but his recommendations are routinely ignored, because he has no authority over the project. Again, if the only people who have authority over a project are those who wish to push the technology as an ideological statement, you will end up with bad results and no accountability.

Independent review panels do not have to be partisan, nor should they be. The plain fact is that this is a scientific enterprise being conducted in the absence of best-practices scientific methods and review.

And again, the reason I describe the programs as pork is because they always have been in the past. During the 1980s, there were ten major contractors working on missle defence. Eight of them were later found be defrauding the government, and by extension, the American people.

I would love it if we could make NMD work, but we won't unless it is developed as the Manhatten Project was -- scientifically.

Never underestimate a politician, even one that you vote for and support. NMD is not, at this point, about national security at all. It's about money. Don't be fooled by the spin.

The so-called shield is, as one critic has said, "a weapon that won't work against a threat that doesn't exist."

1. How does Joe know it won't work?

2. If Bin Laden had a missle with a Nuke, Joe wouldn't be writing this crap for this sorry little commie rag right now. He, and the other 8 million people in New York would be radioactive cinders. Just because Bin Laden doesn’t have the capability to nuke NYC today is no guarantee that he, or others like him won't have it tomorrow. And when they get it, they will use it. Tuesday proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Conasan, as usual, is an idiot.

but at least I've used facts in my argument. These are painful truths, but ones we have to accept

No you haven't and although I'll grant you that it's been "painful" to read through, they're hardly "truths." You've basically gone through a rant to the effect that: a) missile defense "won't work" because it's not being conducted "scientifically", your only evidence being Coyle's criticisms, none of which have recommended the termination of the program; b) the program is "pork" for aerospace companies because some companies have been found guilty of defrauding the government. Name one U.S. government contractor since the Civil War for which that has NOT been the case on some occasion.

And as for this howler...

The plain fact is that this is a scientific enterprise being conducted in the absence of best-practices scientific methods and review..... I would love it if we could make NMD work, but we won't unless it is developed as the Manhatten Project was -- scientifically.

Are you telling me that work on the Manhattan Project was "peer reviewed" in the manner you are advocating for NMD? Did Oppenheimer get a visiting delegation from some Beltway "scientist" think tank, telling him to stop wasting money pursuing this stupid "implosion" idea because it was too risky, difficult, and "would never work anyway"??

Where do you come up with these talking points?

I instantly thought I agreed with the headline. Then I thought about it.

No, it wouldn't have stopped the first plane, but depending on the form of "shield" it may very well have stopped the second and pretty certainly the third.

The patriot is an anti-aircraft missile. The problem with bringing a ICBM down is primarily the speed. An airplane is relatively easy.

For that matter, why don't always we have a two-plane aircover over DC?

I find it interesting that you're quick to criticize everything I've written, but you aren't really using any facts to refute it. I'm sorry if what I've written is an assault on your core beliefs about NMD, but you (like most of us) have been misinformed.

I never claimed Coyle had recommended termination of the program. I said he had criticized the stupid way it was being carried out, and made subsequent recommendations about how to fix it that had been ignored, because he was not given adequate authority.

By the way, for an excellent history of the Manhattan Project, read Richard Rhodes, "The Making of the Atomic Bomb." Incidentally, it was really the scientific community that initiated the Manhattan Project. I think it's interesting (and very telling) that NMD has been the subject of virtually no basic R&D in the academic scientific community. There's a lot of physics, mathmatics, and even chemistry research resources that could be brought to bear on the issue without treading on security issues. But almost no one's doing it because a) there is very little scientific support for the work in terms of feasibility, and b) our government doesn't want these expensive projects worked on with any degree of scrutiny.

Incidentally, for a terrific account of the Manhattan Project, see Richard Rhodes' "The Making of the Atomic Bomb."

I think it's interesting (and very telling) that NMD has been the subject of virtually no basic R&D in the academic scientific community.

It is very interesting indeed, although I disagree with your interpretation of why that is -- I believe it's because modern physics departments are full of Marxists and fellow travelers who wouldn't have minded it in the least had the Soviet Union won the Cold War. In fact, they're downright nostaglic for the old USSR. Also, a lot of leftist academic scientists can't get security clearances, for obvious reasons.

I've read Rhodes' book -- you'll note that when Manhattan began, the "academics" all retreated to the mountains near Los Alamos and did not emerge until their work was done. And they had "peer review" -- they themselves were their own best (and most severe) critics. And that's also true of many of the people who currently work on missile defense projects.

Rhodes' sequel to "Making", "Dark Sun" (about the development of the H-bomb), is also well worth reading, although it's not as good as his first book.

I'm sorry to hear that you so underestimate the American scientific establishment. American research universities are full of good Americans of all political stripes. Are there leftist types as well? Sure. But the types of politics you refer to are actually less common in the science departments than in most others.

But, being scientists, they have a certain rigor about their methods. This is the rigor that is so apparently lacking in our approach to the development of NMD. There are an awful lot of scientists who support the idea of NMD, but who are completely opposed to the wasteful, non-scientific methods being used.

Scientists generally want to be scientists, not politicians. But they also don't suffer fools gladly. I don't want to accuse Rumsfeld and Wolfowiz (sp?) of being fools, but they are certainly doing foolish things with our defense spending.

Let the scientists really go at this problem. Put real review and accountability into the process. Design a system for real world deployment, or don't waste money designing one at all.That's all I'm asking. Until then, I want us to put a "Stop Payment" on that big blank check we're about to give the contractors.

I'm sorry to hear that you so underestimate the American scientific establishment.

I don't think I "underestimate" them at all -- I'm one of them and I happen to know a lot of them.

But the types of politics you refer to are actually less common in the science departments than in most others.

True, but irrelevant -- we're talking about academic science departments and leftism is very much alive and well there, unfortunately.

This is the rigor that is so apparently lacking in our approach to the development of NMD.

I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong about this. The R&D done in the missile defense work done by SDIO and its successor, BMDO, is as scientific and rigorous as any academic work, in some cases, much more so. I have seen many examples of scientific fraud, petty backbiting, stolen ideas, paper padding, and all the other ills that scientific flesh is heir to in academia. And many aspects of missile defense work are as thoroughly critiqued and analyzed as the very best academic work.

There are an awful lot of scientists who support the idea of NMD, but who are completely opposed to the wasteful, non-scientific methods being used.

There may be an "awful lot", but I sure haven't met very many. And your continued characterization of the work as "wasteful and non-scientific" is without any justification. It's just your perception.

Let the scientists really go at this problem. Put real review and accountability into the process. Design a system for real world deployment, or don't waste money designing one at all.

That's exactly what we're doing and trying to do. Thanks for your support.

See, that's the thing. We aren't developing a system for real world deployment. We still aren't building a system that takes countermeasures into account. We still aren't building a system that will be able to hit missles from rogue states (assuming we ever get it to a point where it can even hit known kinds of missles without GPS help).

The problem is not being tackled with the discipline and rigor required to come up with a workable solution. And the politicians and the contractors just want us to believe that everything is peachy -- as long as we cough up the dough.

I stand by my original statement: we're being duped.

The most galling thing about this item has gone unnoticed by all. The date given for this article is September 17th - this being the 14th, that's a mistake.

This piece of sh*t article appeared on NYC's sidewalks in the New York Observer THE MORNING AFTER the attacks. I know, I live here, I saw it. So, during the previous day of horror, while everyone was trying to comprehend the magnitude of the human disaster, this is what the little idiot and his keyboard came up with. It was SO important to spit at Bush and his missile shield WHILE THE ATTACK WAS UNFOLDING, huh Joe? F*ck you and your whole family, scumbag.

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.