North Korean Missile Attack Probably Couldn't Be Intercepted

[WhiteTara]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a8uEkU2MfrNM&refer=home
uly 14 (Bloomberg) -- After North Korea unsuccessfully tested a long-range missile last week, President George W. Bush said that the U.S. would have had ``a reasonable chance of shooting it down. At least, that's what the military commanders told me.''

Former senior Defense Department officials don't share that assessment. ``I would not have confidence,'' said Thomas Christie, who served from mid-2001 to early 2005 as the Pentagon's top testing official. Christie, in an interview, put the likelihood of success at less than 20 percent.

After spending $95 billion -- and amid plans to spend at least $48 billion more -- the program to develop a reliable defense against missiles is years behind schedule and has yet to prove it can intercept a rocket coming from an unknown location.

The ground-based system designed to protect the nation from rogue states such as North Korea ``has no demonstrated capability to defend the United States against enemy attack under realistic conditions,'' said Philip Coyle, an official with the Center for Defense Information in Washington, who held Christie's post from 1996 until 2001.

The additional $48 billion is budgeted for land- and sea- based U.S. missile defenses through fiscal 2011, the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said. The agency said the $95 billion figure represents money spent since then-President Ronald Reagan initiated the program -- then popularly known as ``Star Wars'' -- in 1983 to counter the Soviet Union.
More

I just love how we waste so much money!

[ClydeW]

1. We should spend more on ABM

An ABM system, even an imperfect one, should be a prominent part of the deterrent, particularly in a world where states like North Korea (maybe) and Iran (not yet) possess ICBM's. The old argument against deploying against the Soviets (namely, that they could overwhelm any system that we could hope to implement with sheer numbers), certainly does not apply here. We should be spending more on this, not less. And missile defense is a much more morally attractive part of the deterrent than simply being able to swear vengeance on a would-be destroyer, as in the MAD scenario.

[Suich]

2. Welcome to DU, ClydeW!!!

:party: :toast: :party: :toast: :party:

[ClydeW]

3. Thankyou!

That's a very nice welcome, Suich. I appreciate it. Glad to be here.

[Karmakaze]

5. Bollocks

ABM's were banned for a very good reason: If a nation has ABM's then that nation is less fearful of nuclear retaliation, thus making nuclear first use more desirable.

M.A.D. is only a viable situation when retaliation is assured, and M.A.D. is the only reason there has not been a nuclear war in the last 50 years.

[sueragingroz]

16. Bollocks = correct (n/t)

[HereSince1628]

6. Being old enough to remember the reasons why there was a ban

on anti-missle missles I would say the calculus also included the notion that a nation with an anti-missle system that it's adversaries didn't have would thereby have a distinct advantage if it launched a nuclear exchange first. In this thinking a missle defense actually _promoted_ the nightmare of a first strike mentality. That scarred everyone into agreeing on the anti-missle ban even back in the day when no nuclear power was operating under a "forward leaning" philosophy of pre-emptive use of military force.

Now the world has a nuclear power with hegemonic ambitions that maintains just such a philosophy...the United States.

[elehhhhna]

8. More ABMs, less diplomacy. Great idea.

[leesa]

9. Yup. That's the ticket. More insanity.

[NickB79]

13. Yeah, cause we already spend to much on social programs in the US

We already spend HALF our budget on military spending; where will the billions more needed for missile defense come from?

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. 20%? it's more like 0%.

or less. Over a period of time the objectives of this program will shrink to nothing.

[Dudley_DUright]

7. and the cost will exponentially increase to infinity

(and beyond).

[Barkley]

10. Its all Clinton's fault...

"a reliable defense against missiles is years behind schedule..."

Our missile defense has come back to haunt us.

Russia and China have rejected imposting sanctions on N. Korea for the launches.

I think missile defense has something to do with it.

To build missle defense, U.S. unilaterally terminated the 1972 ABM treaty; that alienated Russia.

And the U.S. is giving nuclear technology to India; that has China angry.

Now the U.S. want cooperation... on ballistic missiles.

[teryang]

11. The US doesn't have a strategic policy, non-proliferation or...

...otherwise. The reason is that the aerospace shareholders, the defense contractors and their neo-con minions control the executive and legislative branch. An uncontrolled cold war arms race is what is desired.

Invest in Lockheed, I understand they have a $286 Billion contract coming up. They already have backorders of $100 billion more or less.

[gratuitous]

12. Oh, a "strategic" policy

I was going to vehemently disagree with you, because the corrupt Bush administration's policy has been from Day One "Does this make more money for me and my cronies?" Now, that's not a very good policy, but by golly, it's a policy! Then I saw your use of the adjective "strategic," and I had to agree.

[teryang]

14. As long as it adds to the bottom line, damn the consequences...

...they make the "policy" up as they go along, and count the capital gains. They rationalize their actions with belligerent accusations against any who question or oppose their actions. The utlmate outcome will inevitably be bad, for business and national security, for all of us, because they abandoned the rule of law.

[daleo]

15. Was Bush lying again?

"Bush said that the U.S. would have had ``a reasonable chance of shooting it down. At least, that's what the military commanders told me.''"

followed by

" ``I would not have confidence,'' said Thomas Christie, who served from mid-2001 to early 2005 as the Pentagon's top testing official. Christie, in an interview, put the likelihood of success at less than 20 percent."

Is the subtext here that even the Pentagon has grown tired of Bushian lies? Decent people in the military must be tired of being misused and abused by this mob.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

17. Corporate media, per usual, never questioned or air other opinions.