Posted on 12/17/2002 4:07:54 PM PST by GeneD
Filed at 6:54 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The missile defense system President Bush ordered to be deployed will not work and is a waste of money, critics said on Tuesday while the Pentagon acknowledged the system initially will provide only modest protection.
``I have no great confidence that it's going to work under real-world conditions,'' said Lawrence Korb, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations think tank who served as assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan.
Bush directed the Defense Department to begin deploying a national missile defense system with land- and sea-based interceptor rockets to be up and working in 2004.
The system is intended to protect the United States against long-range enemy missiles. But there have been three failures in the eight major tests involving attempts to shoot down a long-range dummy warhead in space over the Pacific Ocean, including the most recent test on Dec. 11.
Critics said the program is too costly -- tens of billions of dollars already and potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in the long run -- and has not proven that it can work as advertised. They also expressed worry that the deployment might prompt nations such as North Korea and China to step up missile-building efforts.
John Isaacs, president of Council for a Livable World, an organization opposed to the deployment, said Bush was rushing ahead with a system that is ``deaf, dumb and blind.''
``A missile defense system that protects Americans consistently and reliably is years, if not decades, away,'' he said in a statement. ``The planned deployment lacks a needed radar system to make it see, operational tests to determine if it works and satellite systems to provide adequate sensors.''
'IT'S IMPORTANT TO START'
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the administration was not rushing into anything.
``The reason I think it's important to start is because you have to put something in place and get knowledge about it and have experience with it, and then add to it over time. I mean, there isn't a single weapons systems we have that hasn't gotten better successively over a period of time that I can think of,'' Rumsfeld said during a Pentagon briefing.
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy J.D. Crouch said the system will have ``very modest'' capability when first deployed, but would be ``very useful.''
Rumsfeld added: ``To the extent we have a capability, it will have a deterrent effect. ... To the extent it has a limited capability, it will have a deterrent effect only to that limit.''
Philip Coyle, who as assistant secretary of defense helped evaluate the program during the Clinton administration, said the tests of the system currently planned are not sufficient to determine whether it will work. ``Based on the test results so far, it isn't ready now,'' he said in an interview.
Korb told Reuters he believed Bush decided to deploy in 2004, the final year of his term in office, in order to have a program in place to ensure its long-term use.
``I think it's mostly a political decision because Bush can't be guaranteed a second term, and by picking that particular date what he does is he locks in his successor,'' Korb added.
Some congressional Democrats were critical.
Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, outgoing chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Bush's decision ``violates common sense by determining to deploy systems before they have been tested and shown to work.''
U.S. Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts added, ``It wastes taxpayer dollars and lulls us into a false sense of security.''
``It's all politics and not much defense,'' said Rep. Thomas Allen, a Maine Democrat who noted the deployment target was the fall of 2004, when Bush is expected to seek re-election.
Rumsfeld was asked if the decision was driven by politics.
``It is driven by acute rationality,'' Rumsfeld said. ``There isn't anything we're doing in this department that it would be accurate to suggest is rooted in politics.''
----------------------
My question is, will it be effective against rogue states who have only a small number of missiles? That is where we are apt to have problems.
Gee, I thought we already had a Missile Defense System called " HAARP ", up in Gakona Alaska, that can knock down any missiles that could come from anywhere on earth.Mmm Hmmm.Odd, isn't it, that no one ever talks about the real capabilities of "HAARP".
The North Koreans have admitted they have nukes, and we know they have missiles. They could hit the west coast of the U.S. easy, with what they have right now. So along come Bush and Rumsfeld to at least put something in place to defend us, and these guys are against it. I think their song is getting old. |
You've got to love the NY Times. We get FIVE successful interceptions out of eight tests and they have the nerve to print some guys saying that the system will NEVER work.
Well, NEVER let it be said that the NY Times would let mere logic get in the way of pushing their anti-American, pro-NWO socialist ideology.
As for "rogue states" I think missile subs designed for air defense are more practicle than CONUS based air defense units.
What ever we do, the fact is that at this time we have nothing. Let me repeat that, NOTHING.
That's all you really need to know.
The tripe that follows is predictable: first, you quote somebody who "served under President Ronald Reagan" (this makes the person, and hence the story that follows, credible), then you pile on with inane comments from every socialist scumbag under the sun. Same old thing, even if they don't come out and say it directly - - the money spent on defense, er, rather this hairbrained, unworkable missle defense, would be better spent on welfare, universal health care, midnight basketball, prison computer labs, all-day nursery school, AIDS, teacher salaries, er, education, homeless Hiltons, etc.
Yawn. These geniuses have never explained why they are so much smarter than the Soviets were in the mid '80s when the Soviets constantly threatened to bail out on any arms treaties because of Reagan's insistence on going forward with SDI. The Soviets knew the idea was plausible then, and if it was plausible then, it's certainly "workable" now, 15 years later.
Fortunately, Bush is moving forward with the initiative. And it sure is funny to read the bitter comments from all these liberal scumbags.
That's an item of personal interest, having lived a few blocks away, long ago, from a Nike base on Chicago's lakefront.
The Cobal czar took one look and said that my files couldn't be transformed so ... "that was that."
Thirty minutes later I had them transformed.
End of story.
Very true. The Nike Ajax of the 50's was troublesome. The Nike Hercules of the 60's and 70's was a piece of work. If you blinked, you missed it. Its' "Achilles heel" was tube electronics. The next generation was to be the Nike Zeus. This came to an end when Nixon signed the ABM Treaty with the Soviet Union. The Nike Zeus was really something. It was murdered by de'tante and MAD.
The idea of a peace dividend will always be a farce. The world will be a dangerous place for many decades to come. Those that let the defense of this country atrophy, are committing treason and suicide.
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.
Oh look, Reuters and the New York Times have found some guys who will say bad things about a Defense initiative. I guess they think it's their job to oppose anything defense related, because no matter what it is, they're against it.