A missile shield test was a "smashing success," Pentagon officials said Friday, despite the failure of the test to put to rest concerns that the interceptor might not be able to differentiate between real missiles and decoys.
Early in his campaign, Obama pledged to "cut investments in unproven missile defense systems." But he later said he would support missile defense systems if they work. |
That last paragraph tells you all you need to know. If it doesn't work, Obama's going to cut it. So every test, regardless of outcome, will be called a success.
The spin isn't even consistent. Where the test was meant to simulate "countermeasures similar to what Iran or North Korea could deploy," Lt. Gen. Patrick J. O'Reilly, director for the Missile Defense Agency, says, "Countermeasures are very difficult to deploy. We have had trouble deploying them in the past."
So N. Korea and Iran can pull it off, but we can't?
The spin isn't even consistent. Where the test was meant to simulate "countermeasures similar to what Iran or North Korea could deploy," Lt. Gen. Patrick J. O'Reilly, director for the Missile Defense Agency, says, "Countermeasures are very difficult to deploy. We have had trouble deploying them in the past."
So N. Korea and Iran can pull it off, but we can't?
1 comments:
How Do We Define Success?
On December 5, a rocket launched from Kodiak, Alaska was intercepted by a rocket launched from Vandenburg AFB in California
1. It wasn't a resounding "success": According to Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, head of the Missile Defense Agency, "...the target did not release planned countermeasures designed to try to confuse the interceptor missile. O'Reilly did not say what those countermeasures were, but they often include decoys or chaff to throw off shoot-down attempts." Apparently the technology to shoot down a real enemy missile which would have countermeasures is not yet working.
2.It wasn't a truly realistic test: The "test" was very tightly controlled - everybody knew when the interceptor would be launched and its probable path (they've launched targets from KLC before). One wonders what would happen if they actually had to scramble an interceptor with no prior warning. Now that would be a true test.
3. If the U.S. can't launch an ICBM that works the way it should, why do we think other countries can? Neither North Korea or Iran has ever successfully fired a missile that had any chance of landing anywhere near the U.S. Right now, if North Korea got really lucky, they might be able to hit the tip of the Aleutians. We are sure the folks out there appreciate the expenditure of ten billion dollars a year to help them sleep more soundly.
4. It's ALL about the money: Roughly $10 billion is spent per year on the program, which is run by defense contractor Boeing Co. but includes work by most of the nation's largest weapons makers. It is spread across three branches of the military and is composed of missiles, radar and satellites designed to intercept missiles during different stages of flight.
5. Fortunately, President-elect Barack Obama expressed skepticism about the capabilities of the system during his campaign, leading to speculation he may reduce the program's scope. Russia has strongly objected to plans to install missile interceptors in Eastern Europe.
6. At least the true character of the KLC has finally been admitted. According to the AP: "WASHINGTON - The Defense Department said today it shot down a missile launched from a military base in Alaska..."
7. Finally, Kodiak desperately needs a new high school and a new police station and jail. Our roads are a mess and infrastructure in Kodiak, Alaska and all across the United States is crumbling. Take a drive down the badly distintegrating Mission Road past the Salvation Army and ask yourself: Is Missile Defense worth it? Friday's test cost between $120 million to $150 million.
Post a Comment