The Missile Defense Debate In Maps
Thanks to the BBC, the missile defense debate can be greatly simplified.
Here's what Bush proposed and what the neocons are hyperventilating over the ending of plans for:
And here's the coverage of the AEGIS ship-based system proposed by Obama:
As you can see, coverage against actual, rather than imaginary, threats is marginal at best, and under the Bush plan was almost non-existent - unless you're worried about Russian missiles. "A better missile defense for a safer Europe," my ass. Contrary to both Bush and Obama's statements, the Russians were right to be "paranoid" about missile defense all along.
Recall, too, that Iran has no current nuclear weapons program according to both the IAEA and US intelligence. It would take at least three to five years for it to develop a nuclear-tipped missile from the day it kicks IAEA inspectors out, if it ever does.
We should be asking whether we need such a multi-billion boondoggle at all.
Crossposted at Newshoggers
American taxpayers, when we can throw it away defending our allies from non-existent or highly unlikely to ever exist threats?
We should put a litmus test for the military-industrial complex: Capture Osama Bin Laden first, and then we can talk about extending funding.
US will honor our long-standing mutual defense treaty with European allies
Thomas A
.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
You and your friend HL Mecken don't know much about missile offense. There is no "imaginary" threat of missiles from Iran or North Korea. They may not be viable threats yet, but you'd better believe they're trying. Hobgoblin that, pal. And what ship do we have in Slovakia that covers that span?? Wouldn't a ship-based system in the Mediterranean cover more of Africa? What's imaginary here?
the fear works on some people . . .
:)
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Boondoggle is a good word for it.
how new military weapons contracts work. If there are no new weapons, there is no money!
could live with that im sure . Shutting down the wars and the MIC should be our # 1 priority .
Let them t/bag that .
every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .
If we cut a little out of the bloated MIC - we could cover healthcare for all!
Shhhh. . . it's a secret
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
I second that!
How is it OK for the USA to have nuclear capability to strike anywhere, but NOT OK for other nations to have this capability? Shouldn't we ALL be dismantling?
"We're" the "good guys." Uhuh. /nods
Who pays attention to the IAEA anyway? Or weapon inspectors? Hans Blix was a moron, right? We don't need no stinkin' facts. We're just gonna kick some Iraqi ass. Hey it made alot of money for the "good people".
Additional troops to Afghanistan, a dozen or so weekly KIA, daily Sunni on Shiite on Kurd bombings in Iraq and now a reconfiguration/ platform for missile defense to buffer against Iran and instigate them into an aggressive posture so that Israel can lay the smack down.
Bush scowled as he killed tens of thousands while Obama smiles to assure us that everything will be alright while he blows away scores more.
Why aren't the Moonbats in the street protesting the murderous Obama Presidency?
Frank Zappa - Make A Jazz Noise Here
Once Osama bin Laden's head is on a spike, let alone the rest of the leadership behind that terrorist organization, then I'm all on board for getting out. Let's not forget how Afganistan has been on the back-burner for the last 8 years because of reckless war profiteering in Iraq. Now that we're actually doing stuff in the Afganistan-Pakistan border area (keeping up with the news?) who knows what might happen in the next six months.
Pulling out now might as well be an invitation for the Taliban and al-Qaeda to waltz right back into Afganistan's power structure. Let's keep pushing the advantage we've got right now.
declare OBL dead and cease all fighting ( world wide ) provide those countries with hospitals , food , clothing , water , clean up all of the tons of DU contamination we have used , in other words become peacekeepers , thats leadership and change i can believe in .
We dont need OBL head on a spike , what we need is to wake the fuck up , ya dont make friends by killing their loved ones , we need the become the red cross of the world .
every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .
"Let's keep pushing the advantage we've got right now."
Where was this type American Patriotism during the Bush Era? Especially, on C&L.
And, what exactly is the advantage that we hold in either Iraq or Afghanistan?
Iraq is still a daily mess only now we have courageously wised-up and are basically, standing down. Afghanistan is poppy fields and mud huts so what is it we are looking to preserve?
Both wars are a lost cause, have been for five or six years and a rat hole that Obama continues to feed.
BTW... OBL has been dead since 2006.
Frank Zappa - Make A Jazz Noise Here
Care to provide links to the proof of OBL's death?
The shadow area called "Area Covered" in both maps makes no sense without indicating against what threat. I understand that the coverage against the Shahab-3 is the shadow area within the maximum range of that missile (rocket?). The capability of the shipborne system is also extremely sensitive to where the ships are deployed. Both depictions are sensitive to where the Iranians fire from. Where is that in these drawings? Without all this information all we have is BBC implication and innuendo.
... that the missile defense is meant to be used against Iranian rockets firing in the direction of Israel, Europe, and eventually North America. With the AEGIS system, it covers more ground since it doesn't bother covering deep parts of Russia (they've got their own missile defense somewhere). If the ships are deployed in the Mediterranean and other applicable areas, they can do the job better and at a fraction of the cost.
I must admit that it makes it look as though the neocons are gearing up for another war with the Russians. Not a good thought to have.
rekindling the cold war with Russia is a neocon wet dream
Thomas A
almost makes (bat-shit crazy) sense, considering that there was a blip in the news that Russia's oil output just recently exceeded that of Saudi Arabia.
Factor in the global warming issue, which the Department of Defense (aka Foreign Asset Allocation) is taking quite seriously, which will place an open-sea Arctic Ocean in resource contention between Russia, USA, Canada, and Greenland/Denmark. It is believed that the largest as-yet undiscovered oil reserves in the world will be found in contested territory under the Arctic Ocean.
Add to that the blatant USA neocon interference in the shaky relations between Russia and Georgia the previous summer just before this country's national elections, and we could be watching the kick-off for World War IV.
Unfortunately, any hot war between the USA and Russia WILL involve nuclear WMD, probably many many -- a "nuclear winter" sounds just like a neocon "fix-up" for the very real global warming issue, and would theoretically presage the "end of days" and "rapture" that the neocon supporters are seeking ...
RethugliKKKlanism is a mental illness, and a way of life -- praise dog!
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
They came, if you look in the bottom right corner, originally from the Congressional Budget Office.
The upgraded Shabab3 with a 2000 mile range is the best Iran has. The missile defense systems (both Bush and Obama's versions) are meant to proetct against those Iranian missiles. The area of coverage (which takes into account likely deployment positions) and the area under threat (which takes into account where the Iranians might fire from) almost don't interstect at all. Therefore, we've been sold a line.
Regards, Steve
we can't afford to police the world anymore. we need partnerships. i believe obama knows this to be true. the notion that obama isn't trying to change the iraq and afghanistan war fronts is not true. these war(s) in my opinion are both complicated and involve many players(corporate imperialism). to think the ending of these war(s) is like flipping a light switch is not reasonable.
The entire system is nothing but a huge sop to the defense industry; none of the systems developed are capable of responding to the technical criticisms made by the Union of Concerned Scientists and people like Ted Postal at MIT, that all existing systems are easily defeated by missiles that employ a system of cheap, easy-to-deploy decoys (as simple as a bunch of balloons). Even if the existing systems COULD reliably knock down missiles (which they cannot), they would be unable to deal with decoys. Boost-phase weapons have a better chance, but the system described above is NOT a boost-phase weapon.
Politicians favoring these systems and ignoring the (obvious) flaws in the physics are simply doing what the military-industrial complex wants: handing out taxpayer money for garbage.
... because, gee wiz, I am sure the bad guys would never think of putting $100 worth of mirrors in their missiles!
the seaborne Aegis Weapons System has been operational and deployed for over 10 years and is very effective. You are thinking of the controversial anti-ICBM system.
Thomas A
of an airborne missile-like target happened in 2002. And that was under very controlled conditions, I think the test program is still on-going.
That is far from a 10-yr record of effectivity.
We don't need a missile defense because Russia does not need missiles.
Russia has (to quote a James Bond Movie) "A pipeline to the west."
If they turn off the valves, Europe goes dark.
If it was really to protect Europe, let them do it themselves.
This was the usual provocation by Bushco that all Repuke administrations do to keep their friends in the MIC going strong. Didn't the Russians want to put missiles in Cuba to protect them against the USA? Didn't the world almost go to war because the US could see through that kind of cheap deception but as usual that only goes the Amerikka.
because we had put a shitload of our nukes in theirs (Turkey).
American exceptionalism is awesome like that...
Obama's alternative to Bush's Poland-based ICBM missile defense system will deploy shorter range Aegis and Standard Missile-3 systems on US warships based in the Mediterranean. The US has already developed and paid for this highly effective system for fleet defense. The Bush plan called for new generation ICBM defense missiles that would not be ready and deployed until 2017. The US Navy has equipped 3 Aegis Weapons Systems cruisers with anti-ballistic missile capability. The Navy has converted 15 additional destroyers to incorporate the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense capability. A total of 3 cruisers and 15 destroyers have BMD capability as of March 2009, with three more ships scheduled to be upgraded for the Atlantic Fleet.
Thomas A
killing power do you need?
Aegis SM-3 kills short-range and medium range ballistic missiles aimed at U.S. and friendly ships and/or shore installations at very high altitudes by kinetic energy (no high explosive warhead), hitting the target missile with the force of a ten ton truck hitting a rock wall at 600 miles per hour.
Thomas A
If Obama can finally pass health care reform (even with all the party of NO is doing to prevent it) and Iraq and Afganistan are still going full bore, Dems/liberals/lefties and all sane thinking people (leaves out Repukes) should be out in the streets protesting Obama. But of course when Obama does try to leave Iraq/Afgan the same Repukes will be going after him and be totally against it. F*&^n hypocrites.
Who's paying the neocons' shrieking about the scrapping of a less effective and more expensive missile defense? With that kind of noise being made by John Bolton's mustache, you'd think missile defense was his gravy train.
what a punk
every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqfxmWbelcQ
(Hulu)
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
" celebrate your independece by blowing a small part of it "
every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .
nt
every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_BaWeTAWt3VI/SPICE7S...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
swarthy
Adjective
[swarthier, swarthiest] having a dark complexion.
is that what you think it means?
me-oww!
Start your list.
wtf is 'swarthy bullshit?' You made it up, you used the term. Are you classifying his speechifying as 'black?'
me-oww!
that there will be no huge list of Barrak's accomplishments other than his great visionary speeches.
black. what's up with that, and not answering the question?
me-oww!
get nothing but an echo from this cavernous asshole.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
boosh bailed out the bankers, with no strings attached, and no new liquidity in credits as promised.
Obama bailed out the auto manufacturers to save jobs, and I suppose one could count cash for clunkers as part of that effort. Although it was primarily for control of pollution, it caused something like a 5% uptick in auto sales.
Meanwhile the economy is supposedly getting better, but jobs are lagging, which is not unusual in such circumstances. Part of it would be in coordinating world-wide efforts to contain the damage caused by booshco, and some attempts to rescue home owners facing foreclosures, thus trashing the stock bundles foreign countries and companies bought.
Meanwhile with healthcare he tried to get a unified package from Congress, but the republicans decided it was better to oppose than to help in the effort. So now after the August break the president is stepping up to the plate, only to have people like peggy noonan claim he's boorish. And he did successfully beat back the slander of the opposition on death panels etc.
The hope is that while the Senate seems intent on passing a bill without the public option, the House will, and then the bill will go to conference committee, hopefully to keep that part in. The public is now swinging back in Obama's direction for this effort, although for now the option seems small. But then that may be because it remains an experiment. And he's downplaying the option language for exchanges.
And he's already done much to improve our international standing. Afghanistan might prove problematic. But one thing that impresses foreign leaders is he doesn't preach to them, but spends much of his time just listening and questioning.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I thought this was swarthy talk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RrJih_2PKMhtt...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
It's a shame I was blocked from posting at Newshoggers. I really enjoyed it. I do have one question for you re this post. The missiles Iran is developing have absolutely no military application without a WMD warhead of some sort. Why are they building them?
Hasa Diga Eebowai
intimidating the arab neighborhood & propaganda value for the home front
Thomas A
You weren't blocked, my friend. It's just the comments system at 'Hoggers hated some browsers for a while. It has always worked in IE though.
I think Iran is trying for a "virtual deterrent", Peter. Not actually having nukes but being able to make them at short order if attacked. Japan does this, being able to have its deterrent cake and eat it too. The missile component is the most time-sensitive part of the system. In the meantime, they're as useful as longer-range SCUDS.
Regards, Steve
If our tax dollars can't even be spent to take care of our own people, I'm not sure why we should flush billions more down a toilet made by the military industrial complex...
The AEGIS system is truly the most advanced combat management and threat ellimination system in the world today. When you combine the processors, SPY-1 radars, and the Standard SM-3 missiles it is truly a formidable defensive system. Let's not forget it was the AEGIS system that shot down the satellite, who's orbit was decaying, a while back. The other thing that makes the Arleigh Burke class of destroyers better than a fixed platform system is that it's mobile. You can send the system wherever there is 31' of water. If we retro-fit all the DDG-51 class of destroyers as well as all the CG-47 class of cruisers to utilize the SM-3 missile our level of security will go up considerably. The other advantage is that the AEGIS system can be used to prosecute multiple offensive and defensive missions while providing anti-ballistic missile coverage (5" guns, Mk 50 torpedoes, and Tomahawk missiles can do many things).
how are the politicians going to stay in office without it?
Sorry Steve, but you can rest assured that the original CBO maps had more information than what you just assumed. I was a systems analyst in the Ballistic Missile Defense office back when it was an Army program. I have done more of these capabilities analyses than I care to recall. The maps without the missing information are almost totally meaningless except to a limited extent on the anti-Shabab-3 capability. There is not enough information to draw any implication. You may wish it so but it is just innuendo to draw those conclusions. And, I might add, I am no advocate for deploying almost any missile defense until the technology is proven. I support R& only and have done so for several decades.
Comments are closed on this entry