U.S. cruise missile defense said possible in 14 months

[BushOut06]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States could deploy a system to protect an area ranging from Washington to Boston from sea-based cruise-missile attacks within 14 months at a cost of "several billion dollars," a top Lockheed Martin Corp. executive said on Monday.

David Kier, who formerly was deputy director of the National Reconnaissance Office, said the technologies needed to track, identify and destroy any such missiles launched from ships off the U.S. coastline already existed or were under development.

"It just requires a will to do it," he told congressional aides at a briefing.

Subsonic cruise missiles are not difficult to destroy, Kier said. But it is essential to track them quickly, as they can reach a target within 11 minutes, and to destroy them over water to avoid damage from the debris, he added.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0930288120070709?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true

---

Protect against sea-based missile attacks from who? Canada? Greenland? Iceland? Seriously, who in the hell do they think is going to be capable of launching sea-based cruise missiles against the East Coast?

[dysfunctional press]

1. who s going to be capable of launching sea-based cruise missiles against the East Coast?

china and russia from submarines, would be my guess.

(this should NOT be construed as support for the idea of a cruise-missile shield)

[More Than A Feeling]

2. Yeah, whatever. I'll believe it when I see it.

They've been working on this thing since the end of World War II, haven't they?

[Throwing Stones]

3. Good Timing

It'll coincide with when Mr. Mbwkyani will be moving those unclaimed Texitronicshell Oil, Inc., secret funds into my account.

[Kagemusha]

4. So what about supersonic cruise missiles, Mr. Kier?

I believe the Russians do make a few of those.

[Doctor_J]

5. Cheney told us we could whip Irq for NOTHING

or even at a profit.

Sorry, the bullshit's been piled a little too high for this one to fly

[razors edge]

6. Just pack the damn thing

in cocaine or heroin and the DEA will deliver it for you.

[liam_laddie]

7. An unlikely possibility

"Seriously, who in the hell do they think is going to be capable of launching sea-based cruise missiles against the East Coast?"

Ummmm, methinks Israel may have the gear to do this, but they're supposed to be targeting Eye-ran, no? Oh, wait - AIPAC, Likud, Mossad - hmmm. A new Pearl Harbor y'say? Well..funny things happen in the cynical mind late at night. And don't forget Sarkozy, Brown or Merkel might just get pissed off enough at R. Bruce Chain-y's tricks to lob a small firecracker to an undisclosed location. Naaaah, couldn't happen....
:sarcasm: (or not...)

[Make7]

8. This will help protect America....

... from terrorists attempting to smuggle themselves into the country inside cruise missiles.

I believe a strong missile defense was one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission for that very reason.

:) Make7

[NonRepuke]

9. One day we will use this.

The idea that we need this right now may seem ridiculous, but one day WW3 will be fought. I love the idea of this for the future.... that is, if it doesn't already exist. You know what they say about the military. If the general public knows about something, then it's already obsolete. I wouldn't be surprised if the entire country was already protected.

[daleo]

11. Here's hoping they come up with a nuclear winter shield

and a shield to stop world wide radioactive fallout.

[PSPS]

10. Gee, just in time to "foil a terrorist attack" and suspend the '08 elections.

[Cobalt-60]

12. We'll take care of any new defenses starting in 09

Junior and company have already bitten off far more than they can chew.
In addition to their incompetence, I point out their lack of credibility.
I wouldn't believe these people if they said the Sun was up.
They're seeking another bottomless pit, a nice no bid contract for one of the boys to soak
the post Shrub budget.
We've had enough of the fuhrers initiatives.
I thank the gods this drek won't clear the congress.

[Trajan]

13. I believe that Curveball mentioned this .....

And the Office Of Special Plans has found EVIDENCE ! ......

There it was, In Saddam's garage: A Pile of Cardboard with the words "Cruise Missile Launch Submarine" printed carefully in stenciled crayon ....

Came in a package straight from 'DC Comics' ....

[The_Casual_Observer]

14. Sounds like Lockeed has run out of things to sell Uncle Sam

[Poll_Blind]

15. Coming war with China or Russia, anyone?

  I don't recall Osama bin Laden having a stock of sub-based cruise missiles. Nor Saddam. Nor Chavez. Nor the Hitler de jour, Ahmadinejad.

  China, Russia?

PB

[ChairmanAgnostic]

16. Belgium of course.

and combined nuclear submarine forces from San Marco, Luxemburg and Madagascar.

[tanyev]

17. Heck, 14 more months of George Bush and this country will crumble from the inside out.

[Sirveri]

18. To be fair. Anyone could launch cruise missles at us.

Get a standard merchant freight vessel. Put a cruise missle launcher unit on it. Sail near a major city, launch the cruise missle. Everyone here is focusing on submarines. But stealth is about more than not being seen, it's about not being NOTICED. a freighter heading towards a major freight harbor along a major shipping route will not be noticed.

As for the question of actually ever needing this, seems a bit expensive when our current navy already possesses anti-missle interception capabilities, why not just park some of those boats out there on patrol if you're so worried about it. We've already got a bunch of them that we're going to pay for, might as well use the damned things.

[gulliver]

19. It's just so damned stupid.

Why would they bother with a cruise missile? They could just ship a couple hundred containers full of explosives. Thanks to the Bush Administration, most of the shipments would make it through. Like NMD, this cruise missile shield is just a vacuum cleaner for fools' money.

No one stands to make any real green on port security (except perhaps some Arab country if we let Bush have his way). No, the money is in making expensive, futuile, dumb gadgets that sit and gather dust. Indeed, because of the gullibility and inherent stupidity of the American public when it comes to security in the modern world, these "protective" systems are a threat. They sap security money and give a false sense of security at the same time.

Some country is going to fire a surprise cruise missile at us (instead of just driving the explosives to their destination). Then the cruise missile defense system -- on its first use -- is going to knock down that cruise missile saving the day. Sure it is.