A Boondoggle To Defend Against A Fiction?

thumb_mediumMissile Defense_f73cc.JPG

On Wednesday, Iran announced it had tested what it said was a new missile. But Iran has a history of exaggerating its accomplishments in weapons development, variously claiming stealth aircraft that aren't and missiles that don't exist. Western experts reckon there was actually nothing new this time either - and in fact there may not even have been a "this time":

Andrew Brookes of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies said: "I think the Iranians just keeping on rejigging the same missile and putting a new logo on it. It's basically the Shahab 3 with a different name, and the purpose of the test firing is to tell the world, 'don't forget us', we have missiles that can reach 2,000 kilometres."

"However, the launching of these missiles is not that meaningful because the Iranians have not developed an advanced minituarised warhead to fit into the front end, unless they are getting help from North Korea or Russia, and Moscow says it is not supporting Iran's missile programme.

... Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane's Strategic Weapons, said:.. "What is not clear is whether the test firing took place today or whether it's a photograph taken out of the archives but from the pictures it looks like a two-stage missile with a range of 1,900-2,000 kilometres."

And Dr. Jeffrey Lewis also notes that there's even scepticism over whether this rebranded missile, by either name, is actually solid fuelled - which makes a vast difference to its military usefulness as liquid fuelled missiles need a long time sitting on their launchers while they're filled with fuel (which can easily explode anyway) during which time they are sitting ducks for airstrikes.

Even such a missile is capable of hitting Tel Aviv, however - and the Israelis are supremely confident they could shoot it down before it did. It cannot reach Rome, Athens or Prague from Iran, and as such doesn't constitute any kind of threat to Europe. (Although it could reach Tbilisi, Georgia - but then again, so could earlier, far less sophisticated Iranian missiles, it's only 500 or so miles.) Even if Iran had missiles that could target Europe - and ever has warheads worth doing that with - as Dr. Lewis has previously noted, the Aegis cruiser platform would be a better alternative to the multi-billion boondoggle the Bush administration has proposed in Eastern Europe, both more effective and more sensitive to Russian concerns.

So what's going on? Well, Spencer Ackerman recently spoke to a bunch of Pentagon officials and military experts for a piece in the Washington Independent about Obama's relationship with the military and its supporters. Their unanimous advice was: "Consult, don’t steamroll — and don’t capitulate." and to make it clear there's only one Commander in Chief. In an adjunct piece at his FDL home, Spencer directly tackles the military budget and attitudes to "big ticket" procurement:

One of my sources for the piece is a Pentagon official who requested anonymity. He made a really interesting point that, alas, had to fall out of the piece. Despite the unsustainability of half-trillion-dollar military budgets during this period of dire financial hardship, the services will cling to their favorite big-ticket programs with an icy death-grip. If Obama's really going to make painful cuts to unnecessary defense programs, he's got to go all-out, making it clear that he's in charge and the cuts are happening no matter what. If he doesn't do that, he's going to get rolled throughout his presidency.

And he specifically links that to missile defense and Gen. Oberling, who told the AP:

The Air Force general who runs the Pentagon's missile defense projects said Wednesday that American interests would be "severely hurt" if President-elect Obama decided to halt plans developed by the Bush administration to install missile interceptors in Eastern Europe.

Oberling is due to retire in a couple of weeks. Does anyone doubt that his next job will be for either one of the contractors who stand to gain big-time from the ABM program or one of the neocon think tanks who have pushed it so hard as part of their "New American Century" plans? Those think tanks - themselves heavily funded by the very same arms manufacturers - have made explicit that missile defense should eventually include space-based weapons and be aimed at Russia too (thus Russia's consternation at the current plans) and intend a January push to sway the Obama administration and public opinion in an attempt to prevent Obama cancelling the program, as he has previously indicated he might.

These vested interests intend trying to steamroller Obama from word one, and Oberling is willing to bend the truth all out of shape in their service. He's pushing, as one ex-military writer puts it, "a ballistic missile defense system that doesn't work to defend it from ballistic missiles that don't work either." And the Cheneyites of the Right are willing to start Cold War II to get it, and the money for their arms-making allies that it represents.

However, Obama has said he'll cancel the program if it doesn't work as advertised - and the interceptors to be used at the European sites haven't even been tested yet. European leaders, too, are beginning to sound sceptical notes:
>

France's U.S.-friendly president sent a clear message Friday to the next American administration: Plans for a U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe are misguided, and won't make the continent a safer place.

... "Deployment of a missile defense system would bring nothing to security ... it would complicate things, and would make them move backward," Sarkozy said at a news conference with Medvedev. Medvedev smiled and pointed his finger at Sarkozy in approval.

...Sarkozy said he was worried about Russia's threat to deploy short-range Iskander missiles near Poland in response to the U.S. move.

"We could continue between Europe and Russia to threaten each other with shields, with missiles, with navies," he said. "It would do Russia no good, Georgia no good and Europe no good."

Sarkozy said he would discuss the missile issue with NATO counterparts at a summit early next year and proposed a pan-European security conference after that, to include Russia. Medvedev welcomed the idea.

All the more remarkable because:

1) Sarko wasn't just speaking for France - he was meeting with Medvedev as part of an EU-Russia summit and France currently holds the EU presidency.

2) His remarks came just days after the US missile defense supremo said that US interests would be "severely hurt" if the program was cancelled. Obviously, Sarkozy doesn't think that French or European interests would be likewise negatively affected.

Previously posted in a different form at Newshoggers

Related Reactions

Advertise Here

Login or Register to post comments.

31 comments

Let's see, universal health care, or a system that won't work, costs trillions, and pisses off the rest of the planet? Which provides more security to the USA?

What produces more profits and jobs for the MIC and their lobbyists and friends in Congress.
Its a no brainer, MIC profits wins every time, society gets rooked and taken to the cleaners all the time

Blackwater are reportedly in Alaska doing guard duty on a similar pretend missile defense system.

And whatever happened to the MAD doctrine (mutually assured destruction),
surely the inevitable response of an Cruise Missiles, ICBMs or B52s responding and dropping something more nasty on Iran, would stop them doing anything stupid.
ICBMs are quite large and its prob easy to fit some form of conventional warhead like a fuel air bomb into one if needed.
Theres nothing any tinpot country could do to stop an ICBM dropping onto them from space, even the US would be hard pushed to intercept a real life one.

But what about all those $$$$$$$$$$$$ that go to CEO bonuses in the health and insurance industries. Why take it out on the poor CEO's. Afetr all, they gave us this great republican economy.

.

Too true. Who will trickle down on us all if the CEOs are forced to accept paychecks only 100x what their average workers make?

You're all missing the REAL victims if we defund this nonsense - Carlyle Group. A tear should well up in your eyes knowing that you'd be taking food offa Poppy and Grandma Bush's table.

That makes baby Jesus cry. Damn uncaring libruls.

handles it, either choice will be a clusterphuk.

Abject, total stupidity.

The cartoon at the top basically says it all - the Bushies and the Neocons are so overheated about setting up an untested, possibly porous-as-a-sieve missile barrier that has the sole object of pissing off Russia, while real threats are ignored or glossed over.

President Obama would do well to review this and stuff it into the shitter - Lord knows the money can be put to better use elsewhere.

I used to do research for the USAF and DARPA. I came across many people doing work on Star Wars related issues. Luckily the groups I worked for (we contracted to USAF and DARPA) all refused to do Star Wars related work because we recognized how unreal it was. In all my time in that community I never met one person who seriously thought it would work. The people who did the research would justify it by saying that there were some very interesting research problems (in areas such as distributed computing) that needed to be solved and that would have benefits elsewhere. I was politically far to the left but most of my colleagues were people who had spent their lives working for the military and some were very right wing. We disagreed on a lot of issues but we all agreed on Star Wars. Not one scientist or engineer that I knew believed it was an effective use of money.

{ Deleted, woody, you can't spam the site. SiteMonitor}

One other point I forgot to make. If you look into the tests that have been conducted they have virtually ALL failed. And there has NEVER been a realistic test. The tests that are conducted are set up so that everyone knows exactly when and where the incoming missile will be fired. Of course in a realistic test you wouldn't know either of those things and in addition there would most likely be dummy firings and counter measures you would have to contend with. But even with these rigged tests they fail to shoot down the missile virtually every time. And in their typical criminally incompetent fashion how did Rumsfeld/Bush respond to this? THEY CHANGED THE LAW THAT REQUIRED SYSTEMS TO BE TESTED BEFORE THEY ARE DEPLOYED: http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/24/natio...

There was some article on some site, which hypothesized about kinetic payloads and their lethality to carrier groups.
Basically large shotgun type shell warheads which would destroy anything floating no matter what they did to try and stop it.
The Iranians also supposedly have a version of the Russian hyperfast torpedoes, things which can travel underwater at supersonic speeds.
Missile defense shields are useful to defend places like the Pentagon (why was the existing Washington one turned off on 9/11) and military bases.

Diplomacy is better, easier and cheaper than expensive fantasy scifi shields.

Hopefully in January after the Bushco is kicked out of the White House, world politicians will sit down and talk.

A novel idea, lets use the UN and actually talk to each other about world peace, cutting down on global mil spending would free up trillions for other uses.

it can go through just about anything. However relying on the kinetic energy of an IRBM is very chancy. Unless the thing is MIRVed there wouldn't be much point to it. There is no such thing as a supersonic torpedo. It is physically impossible. The Iranians don't have it because the Russians don't have it.

Let's just drop the pretense, ask Carlyle Group how much money they want and just give it to them.

If they were to actually deliver a product, it might hurt or kill our servicepeople.

200 US service got killed by one going boom on launch, that and same or another one launching on camera and the dumb TV journalist reporting it taking down a SCUD, reality was the Patriot missile arcing down and exploding into houses.

But success of sorts, they got data to correct them.
Just pity the poor sods anywhere nearby.

As the post notes, "But Iran has a history of exaggerating its accomplishments in weapons development..." Despite this admission, which Obama has known for quite some time, however, our president-elect decided to ratchet up the fear factor when he declared at a major speech on "national security" on July 15th at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center in Washington, D.C. that "We cannot tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of nations that support terror. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a vital national interest of the United States. No tool of statecraft should be taken off the table. "No tool of statecraft" is Obama's way of reassuring the war machine, which he is a part of, that the use of military force is one of those tools. It should also be pointed out that the former [alleged] anti-war candidate gave a speech to AIPAC last June where he told Israeli supporters that he would do "everything" to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, all this comes as no surprise as this simply follows the pattern of Obama's desire for continued imperiarism. At the speech that he gave on July 15th, he assured his audience that he will "double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future states..." While this may, on the surface, sound benevolent, the end result will mean that the United States will be using this "aid" as leverage to keep third world countries in line by its invidious dependence upon the World Bank and the Export Import Bank. These agencies destroy local economies and make them ever more dependent on the U.S.

The point of all this is that Obama's imperialist policies [such as his willingness to escalate the war in Afghanistan and maintain troops in Iraq and his desire to keep the military option available against Pakistan and Iran] must be opposed quite vigorously or else innocent civilians will die, regardless of whether they will have occurred for [alleged] "humanitarian" reasons.

There is also the obviously totally irrelevant fact that the American Physical Society, the premier professional organization for physicists, has officially issued a statement to the effect that the whole Star Wars system cannot work as advertised without violating the laws of physics. We clearly absolutely need a grossly overpriced, geopolitically destabilizing, and totally ineffective missile defense system. /s

Is this the study you are refering to http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmdco... or this one http://tara54.berkeley.edu/articles/issue9/mi... You are right they are quite critical but as I understand them they do not say that Star Wars would need to violate the laws of physics. A perpetual motion machine violates the laws of physics. Star Wars is virtually impossible from an ENGINEERING perspective but there is nothing that I'm aware of that violates the laws of physics. As you can see from my previous posts I'm completely opposed to it, I'm just being a bit anally retentive and precise in how we criticize it.

Sarkozy is absolutely right. It is great news that he has made such a public, and rational, statement about this ill-conceived missile shield.

I say skip the missiles and just write the a check to the companies that produce these interceptor missiles. If making money is the driving concern here, then they'll get their piece of the action, yet diplomatic relations with Russia would not be further strained.

Of course I'm joking here. But this is how little sense I think the missile shield makes; it would make almost as much sense to just give the arms manufacturers money for nothing... an safer for everyone.

Why not pour all that stimulus money into mega-projects that rebuild America's infrastructure into something sustainable?

A national electric train system, powered by solar energy collected beside the tracks.

A new national energy grid, as per Al Gore.

Retooling domestic car makers to make exclusively plug-in hybrids or electric vehicles.

National health care.

New, better schools.

Housing for everybody.

Then invest hundreds of billions of dollars into developing alternative energy sources. Wind, solar, wave, geothermal, etc.

See? There are lots of things to pour money into. We just need to direct the flow in more useful directions.

Think of it as a war. A war against people that waste money on useless armaments and anti-productive conflicts.

I guess this is my day to nit pick on words but a boondoggle is something that is expensive and inflated but ultimately worthless. The things you mention would all be great ideas and worth investing in as opposed to Star Wars because they would not be boondoggles. It wouldn't just be "throwing money" at things it would be investing money that would ultimately come back to us in terms of new industries, better standard of living, etc. I'm always amazed when I hear right wingers talking with pride about how we have built schools, or hospitals, etc. in Iraq and Afghanistan but if we try and do the same thing here its considered socialism. We have to get beyond the insane right wing "free market cures all" philosophy and start investing in things that are useful for other purposes than to blow people up. And to do that we can't continue to pour billions into "defense".

Your posts have been outstanding lately.
Substantive and satisfying, like a turkey dinner with all the trimmings.

There's no question we need to cut some of these big ticket programs So, how to do it while avoiding the typical 'Pub "weak on national security" attacks?

I haven't given this enough thought, but it occurs to me that one way would be a "support the troops" meme that focuses on the need to repair and replace our tattered equipment and mend the hearts and bodies of our returning troops.

Widespread, thanks for the kind words.

There's a massive disparity between the US defense budget and its next three competitors (France, UK, Japan in that order) not to mention its biggest rivals (Russia, China).

The US could spend (and have a military capability) over-topping any three of those nations for maybe half of what it spends now. So what exactly is the point of the rest of the budget? Future threats? In 10,20 and 30 years time the discrepancy will still be there.

The rest is pure pork, in a very real sense. This is the real deal, not penny-ante bridges to nowhere. If we are to solve our fiscal problems then defense spending has got to take a hit. If we are going to have any hope of implementing or expanding much needed domestic programs then defense has got to take a big hit. Even the Pentagon knows this, but the incestuous relationships between top military leaders, arms companies, lobbyists and many lawmakers is a huge barrier to reform.

The Unified Security Budget is a document that a the Real Security Initiative puts out every year. It identifies specific cuts in the defense budget (Cold War platforms) and redirects it to other areas that are within the normative security domain (homeland security, ports, bioterrorism defense, etc) You might find it interesting.

Regards, C

It's amazing how the defense contractors manage to spread out their supply chains through so many electoral districts, thus ensuring that virtually none of the corresponding legislators will kill the project.

manufacture in this country?

remove our troops from germany,korea,japan and europe?

This situation (great cartoon btw) reminds me of the European countries that were gearing-up to refight WWI during the twenties and thirties.

The French threw millions into the Maginot Line of static fortifications on their border.

The Nazi Germans responded by going around the fortifications through the "inpenetrable" Argonne Forest.

Both the French and British had some tanks( Char bis, A - 8) that were better than anything that the Nazis had. But they committed these tanks in a piecemeal fashion as infantry support, while the Germans committed large units to punch through enemy lines.

The Allies failed with outdated tactics - but at least the weapons systems ACTUALLY WORKED!

Our arms manufacturers propose to sell us weapons systems that don't work based upon strategies and tactics that are clearly inappropriate to the situations faced today.

General Dynamics, Carlyle et al win big!

Ewe, Ess, Aye! Ewe, Ess, Aye!

Shite...

Many of us said early on Bush was recklessly spending on the war and in the end we would be lucky if we were throwing rocks at Iran at the pace of deficit spending NeanderBush was throwing dollars at the wars.

We'll now the jury is in...

Experts see security risks in downturn
Global financial crisis may fuel instability and weaken U.S. defenses

'But many government and private terrorism experts say the financial crisis has given al-Qaeda an opening, and judging from public statements and intercepted communications, senior al-Qaeda leaders are elated by the West's economic troubles, which they regard as a vindication of their efforts and a sign of the superpower's weakness.'

"These vested interests intend trying to steamroller Obama from word one." That is exactly what they are trying to do but will they succeed? BTW, I am so thankful that someone other than myself is saying to slash the military and reminding him that the civilians run the show in America.

You really want to stop the snake from coming at you? Stop poking sticks in its hole.

Unfortunately, the US hasn't learned anything in 20 years. The more the US put sanctions on Iraq, the stronger Saddam's hold on Iraq became while 500,000 kids died. The same thing is happening in Iran - the extremists don't want Obama in power because he might talk to the moderates, or worse yet, stop threatening Iran which means the extremists lose all power in the country. If that happens, the Iranians will return to democracy on their own (like they used to be in 1953, before the US overthrew their democracy).

in 50 years. other than that i agree wholeheartedly.

Strategic Defense initiative is a multi-billion dollar arms race. It provides negligible defensive capabilities and will not protect the American homeland.

It's only capabilities between now and the next dozen years, is to protect existing military assets for retaliation. If Russia or China wanted to nuke NY, Washington D.C., San Francisco, LA, Dallas, Chicago, Seattle, or Miami, they could do so with impunity.

Nothing developed to date can stop a sub-launched cruise missile sitting off the coastline, or an air-launched cruise missile fired from a bomber or fighter jet. Those missiles can be equiped with nuclear warheads and would detonate between 10 seconds and 10 minutes after launch. Defenses would have to be on auto-pilot to be effective.

So, if it doesn't work, then why the billions of dollars?

It seems that we have in our wisdom used our unprecedented post war influence and prosperity to create and expand our now global economy on the foundation of a consumerism that is fully dependent upon an ever expanding population of those drawn into the industrialized complex to squander increasing amounts of cash on a boat load of useless crap. In a nutshell, that is the operative definition of Market Economy. It obviously also includes your humble home, your basic or your outlandish car, and a refrigerator. And with those come good and bad loans and credit cards. This, anything but free, Market Economy has become America’s current heart and soul. So much so, that when there is a blip in that Market, our government sends out what they call tax rebate checks of a few hundred dollars each to those who are more likely to do just that, spend, rather than increase support to the poorest among us who might use extra food stamps and/or a few more weeks of unemployment compensation to buy the barest essentials.

When that doesn’t work beyond a tick in the tape, a full scale bailout for the now impoverished wealthy and their shares in the Market’s super financial corporations, which now sets the price of the formerly referred to as “Free” Market Economy to be a “toxic and illiquid 750 billion dollar” Market Economy which is indebted to those who covered their assets with a derivative multiplicity whose definition escapes even the nation’s financial czars who invented them and then proceeded to lend what basically amounted to good-ol’-boy cigar smoke with impunity to one another on a wink and a nod to the derivative assured tune of 531 trillion dollars, until ultimately none of the world trade financial giants would extend one day of credit even to each other for the internal distrust of insolvency. And slight choke on the smoke.

It draws an irony behind waging a yet fruitless war over the fall of the grandiose symbols of the Free Market Economy, the World Trade Center Twin Towers, brought down by foreign hatred of exactly that which even we ourselves might now see as a possibly treasonous Corporate American greed that would fully pulverize and devastate itself and the financial foundations of the entire world, as we now hastily throw buckets of money to the rich and pledge allegiance to “one nation, under financed in deregulation, with no justice dispensed, and all civil and financial liberty abdicated to the executive branch.”

The wealthy hold contempt for social governing when they are rich, but demand huge chunks of tax money to shore up profits when they are not, because they know from the outset that there is never a “trickle down.” Real money is always “sucked up.” And these tax monies as well are increasingly bled from the unfortunate working poor who have no voice in their need and in good times hold quietly to false hopes bandied about by the rich that the trickle will begin to pour. In good times they are the middle class and they have a price. And the rich say, this isolated incident and disaster is an enigma, this is a once in a life time drop in the market, and then snicker conspiracyism at a thoughtful comment on how the money moved the rumrunner into a more legitimate business. But it was the rumrunner who said it himself. And it may be that the crime is less organized than it might have been, but there will always be the municipal contract, and the Fed. And it will always be a contract on the poor, because the Free Market will never ask where the money comes from, so long as you have it. But the money will always change hands, be it by a bag runner in downtown Chicago or through an office high on K Street. It will now forever be an unchartered organization of disorganized crime. No organization is needed when the code of silent values are clear and the resemblance of ethics embraced. Those understanding these, will regulate themselves and as many as they may, until the end time. And when the end time looms, the top will pay dearly for the crowd to yell “kill” and some poor, needy, do-gooder will usually do it but good. So the world order lingers in the smog.

We have it in writing, the perfect world order, when the government, the commerce, and the organized godheads all agree. The perfect world order spreading freedom and prosperity throughout the world by the most deadly armed, heavily ammunitioned, and most highly tech-equipped military a sole world super power can provide to every corner of the globe, wherever corporate control of the provincial government and the gross national product of business is obstructed.

Hampered by those intent on a social integrity, those who revere ethnic communities and customs, those who fight to protect the land, water, and human rights of the uprooted indigenous peoples, and thwarted by those who impede the squandering of natural resources, biodiversities, and environmental symbiosis, the industrial expansion is disrupted also by its own, governments that fully fathom sovereignty, those already entrenched in established political and financial power know implicitly to resist another’s greed for their own. Although in the end, prosperity ruthlessly pursues from exactly these so established, those having an obtainable price, supplies them with munitions to establish the rule of Market law, and that coalition then colludes to advance the rule of their money at gunpoint. The Cold War was the Third World War. And the people of each nation lost and are losing still. The Market Economy, now surnamed “Money Talks”, won and conquered, and spreads peace and prosperity with each “smart bomb.” It is not the first end times.

We have it in writing, the perfect world order, when the government, the commerce, and the organized godheads all agreed. The Pharisees, the Sadducees, and Rome all grasped rigorously to the governing rule of law to kill the Christ, kill all that was good in the world so that the world order remained, so that peace was maintained, and power remained in the realm of the selfish and self-righteous. It is the world order. It is the Tower of Babel. And it is what the Book is all about: The ebb and flow of world order verses human decency. And the Market Economy is the world order, where money talks and rampant and vulgar consumerism is the Babylonian whore luring the rich and powerful to plunder at will. There is no new thing under the sun.

The sun rises. The truth falls
Under the scrutiny.
The sun sets. World Trade
Reigns and the storm
Gathers the nations.
There is no new thing
Under the sun.
Not even who. Who
Holds the reigns. And
Who does not. Not even
How. How the storm
Calms the waters raging
When the world is
In World Order. What
Rules where is written
In the end times
Long ago. Then and
There is no new thing
Under the sun.

When there is nothing, only manna, those that gather more have no more than they need and those that cannot have no lack. The rich decry it in their wealth and demand it in their poverty. So if it is good for Wall Street now, why is it never good enough for Main Street and why does no one now scream “We Will Never Forget”?

31 comments

Login or Register to post comments.