Time to Scrap Missile Defense Technology
| By ToddHill - Jul 4th, 2006 at 1:52 pm EDT |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
I've been bothered since the 80's when Ronald Reagan first proposed such technology, but as I've grown up, studied more about it, and witnessed the unbelievable amounts of endless spending towards this fantasy, my opinions have only become hardened over time. We must stop spending billions and billions of dollars on fantasy lasers and ridiculous missile defense systems that can't thwart 21st century threats and enemies.
First, this technology would have done nothing to stop an attack along the scales of September 11th. What if one of the planes that struck the towers or the pentagon contained a dirty bomb? What if, God forbid, a future attack on America being planned by emboldened terrorists contains plans for a dirty bomb? Just how would a missile launched from a destroyer or silo somewhere in the world protect the intended terrorist target? Quick answer is that it wouldn't. This is old Cold War era thinking here, it is time to quit wasting spending on this technology and move it instead towards 21st century defense strategies, and not the strategies that Rumsfeld or any other neocon believes should be the focus.
Second, the system has been met with more failures then it has successes. Time and again when attempting to test this technology it has been met with failure after failure, much like Time magazine has reported in their latest issue. In most cases it is faulty equipment or computer technology that has caused such failure. If, theoretically, you have multiple nuclear warheads in the air heading towards strategic U.S. targets we don't have time to sit and worry if rusty equipment or outdated computer chips are going to prevent the shooting down of just one of the likely multiple warheads heading towards the continental United States; which brings me to my next point.
Third, missile defense technology will do nothing to stop a multiple warhead launch from anywhere in the world. Any testing done on this technology has only been a single warhead launch intercepted by a single missile launched from a ship or land based missile silo. If we are going to continue and think Cold War era then it stands to reason people would have learned by now that any attack from another nation with conventional nuclear weapons would do so with overwhelming amounts of nuclear warheads. The likelihood of a single launch happening is next to zero.
Fourth, the creation of missile defense technology only guarantees a new arms race with emerging 21st century military powerhouses such as China, and even with old military powerhouses such as Russia. This, again, brings us back to point three above, that any warhead launch would likely result in more then a single warhead being launched to begin with.
Fifth, spending on this ridiculous technology could be better spent combating 21st century threats of global terrorism, which has been more emboldened by America's neoconservative democracy installation project in Iraq. North Korea or Iran would never directly attack America, or her allies, they would instead sell the technology to someone else and allow them to carry out the mission for them. This would render the terrorist sympathizing government blameless should the attack occur. Our government would be in shambles and our citizenry in a panic anyway. All it takes is one single nuclear weapon launch, and any retaliatory response would only guarantee a worldwide nuclear holocaust.
Politicians love to complain about pork barrel spending and I suggest this is one particular project that should rank #1 on the list of wasteful government spending. Let's instead move missile defense spending towards stopping nuclear proliferation, something the current administration has absolutely failed at doing, and Congress seems to lack the will power to address. Preventing more nations, and certainly terrorist harboring nations, from acquiring this technology is absolutely in the best interests of our National Security.
First, this technology would have done nothing to stop an attack along the scales of September 11th. What if one of the planes that struck the towers or the pentagon contained a dirty bomb? What if, God forbid, a future attack on America being planned by emboldened terrorists contains plans for a dirty bomb? Just how would a missile launched from a destroyer or silo somewhere in the world protect the intended terrorist target? Quick answer is that it wouldn't. This is old Cold War era thinking here, it is time to quit wasting spending on this technology and move it instead towards 21st century defense strategies, and not the strategies that Rumsfeld or any other neocon believes should be the focus.
Second, the system has been met with more failures then it has successes. Time and again when attempting to test this technology it has been met with failure after failure, much like Time magazine has reported in their latest issue. In most cases it is faulty equipment or computer technology that has caused such failure. If, theoretically, you have multiple nuclear warheads in the air heading towards strategic U.S. targets we don't have time to sit and worry if rusty equipment or outdated computer chips are going to prevent the shooting down of just one of the likely multiple warheads heading towards the continental United States; which brings me to my next point.
Third, missile defense technology will do nothing to stop a multiple warhead launch from anywhere in the world. Any testing done on this technology has only been a single warhead launch intercepted by a single missile launched from a ship or land based missile silo. If we are going to continue and think Cold War era then it stands to reason people would have learned by now that any attack from another nation with conventional nuclear weapons would do so with overwhelming amounts of nuclear warheads. The likelihood of a single launch happening is next to zero.
Fourth, the creation of missile defense technology only guarantees a new arms race with emerging 21st century military powerhouses such as China, and even with old military powerhouses such as Russia. This, again, brings us back to point three above, that any warhead launch would likely result in more then a single warhead being launched to begin with.
Fifth, spending on this ridiculous technology could be better spent combating 21st century threats of global terrorism, which has been more emboldened by America's neoconservative democracy installation project in Iraq. North Korea or Iran would never directly attack America, or her allies, they would instead sell the technology to someone else and allow them to carry out the mission for them. This would render the terrorist sympathizing government blameless should the attack occur. Our government would be in shambles and our citizenry in a panic anyway. All it takes is one single nuclear weapon launch, and any retaliatory response would only guarantee a worldwide nuclear holocaust.
Politicians love to complain about pork barrel spending and I suggest this is one particular project that should rank #1 on the list of wasteful government spending. Let's instead move missile defense spending towards stopping nuclear proliferation, something the current administration has absolutely failed at doing, and Congress seems to lack the will power to address. Preventing more nations, and certainly terrorist harboring nations, from acquiring this technology is absolutely in the best interests of our National Security.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
It will be a lesser but important victory for the public when writers in the traditional press and elected officials become courageous enough to publicly support Mr. Hill's sober analysis.
How could you be so stupid? Why would you elect a Conservative as your leader in this time of global crisis?
Sincerely, Mexico, Canada, Germany, Australia, Portugal...etc.
Didn't they just... elect a conservative?
Like, a few days ago?
Wasn't Schroeder replaced by Merkel, who is essentially to his right?
Canada? Is it just me, or is Paul Martin not Prime Minister anymore?
Please advise?
I'm waiting for the recount to be completely done, but I frankly wouldn't be surprised if Lopez Obrador walks away with it by a comfortable margin.
Gee, you think? Metal detectors will also not stop an attack that matches the scale (singular) of September 11th. That's a strike against metal detectors... how? Not every security method has to defend against every threat. If you think every threat to America in the future is going to be from terrorism or other asymmetrical warfare, you demonstrate a stunning lack of imagination.
And if another Cold War begins? Preparation for such a scenario didn't, and shouldn't, simply go the way of the dodo because the Soviet Union fell.
Again, you speak of a vast array of different systems, techniques, and technologies as if they're all one "system". This lack of differentiation is utterly silly.
All this demonstrates is how stunningly little you know about the defense spending and security climates of Russia and China.
Also, you get our defense spending wrong as well - aside from the laser-based stuff that pretty much everyone agrees we can scrap, missile defense is not a gigantic chunk of the budget. It does not significantly impact our spending priorities.
This Administration has been out to lunch on proliferation, but even if they were on the ball - there's really relatively little we can do. Saying "Oh, and we should stop proliferation instead of spending money on this" is putting salt on a bird's tail. You should really talk to some policymakers to get a better sense of what the real challenges they're facing within the defense budget are.
It's unlikely to be productive or cost effective.
A very real and serious threat is the cost of health care and 45 million Americans without health insurance and runaway prescription costs.
This country is militarily the most powerful in the world.
It's time to start addressing real costs and real issues like health care and global warming instead of hypotheticals.
Is a border fence necessarily a terrible idea?
Poverty, while shitty, does not pose an existential threat to America - and American poverty is a hell of a lot better than poverty elsewhere in the world. What has been our greatest contribution to ending world poverty? Our nuclear umbrella in Asia, which has been crucial to the economic development of the region, and is in large part why no sane government in Asia wants us to leave.
Military technology is not just a hypothetical tool of war - it's a very real tool of peace.
Our being able to radically alter the course of global warming with politically feasible policy decisions is also a very big hypothetical.
Moreover, I can't think of a political philosopher I've ever read that doesn't consider poverty a threat to every society it afflicts, once it grows to a certain level. Poverty can reach critical mass with amazing speed, and dismissing its potential is the height of hubris. For God's sake, Joe, haven't you ever read a history of the Great Depression? What presented the conditions for the rise of fascism? How about communism? There's one common denominator I can think of instantaneously, and that's the preponderance of poverty.
Metal detectors would have in fact stopped 9/11 had security been tighter, and the personnel manning the metal detectors were better trained. If you remember the hijackers used box cutters as weapons, which had they been discovered by the metal detectors/security personnel, would have prevented the hijackings. I'll chalk that up as an oversight by you.
And, another Cold War era has already begun by our insistence on building a missile defense shield. It only encourages China to rapidly continue and build more long range missiles, and also encourages countries like Iran and North Korea to build more long range nuclear weapons in order to overwhelm this pitiful system. Plus, our abandoning of the ABM Treaty with Russia only encourages them to rebuild the very missiles the treaty helped to destroy, and then some.
I love too how you challenge my knowledge of Russia and China military spending, yet you offer no counterpoints. This only means that I'm spot on with my analysis while you flounder in your pitiful attempts to downgrade my analysis. To educate you, China has rapidly increased their defense spending in double-digit percentages since the 1990's. No, it's not the size of the US military budget, but lets be honest, our budget is sustaining war, while China's is going towards new 21st century technologies. Here is a link to better enlighten and educate you: Link
Finally, washing away the fact this administration has done a horrible job on nuclear proliferation doesn't dismiss their blatant ignorance and lack of forsight in preventing the spread of it. You essentially give them a free pass and apologize for it, and essentially say get over it. That might be good enough for you, but not for me. How about instead of throwing out lame retorts you do a line by line analysis of the budget and enlighten the Campus Progress community on how money is allocated, and specifically for preventing nuclear proliferation. I'm sure we would all be stunned into submission by your amazing analysis of the situation. Had the Bush administration taken this seriously from day one, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in today.
TMH
1. 50 nobel laureates wrote a letter about the total infeasibility of this technology.
2. They've never passed any test where the incoming target missile didn't have a homing device planted on it. (Of course, anyone actually shooting an intercontinental ballistic missile at us would be kind enough to place a homing device on it).
3. The interceptor part of the missile defense program has been investigated for fraud by the FBI for faking test results, which they eventually had to retract.
This is nothing more than welfare for weapons corporations who otherwise would have run out of much of their market after the Cold War ended.
But at least they have Missile Defense to keep them at the top of the profit growth list. Plus, of course, they win by selling US military technology to other countries so they can go back to DC and say they need more money for new technology so we can stay ahead (of our own).
1.) Interceptor missiles--unless they're 100% effective against unidentified incoming missiles, they're not going to be useful as a deterrent. They'll just encourage greater proliferation, which is the problem with all ABM technology.
2.) Metal detectors and proper training would have prevented 9/11. Stupid example--the technology would have worked fine if used properly, unlike with ABM programs, where the is no porperly-working technology to employ.
3.) The ABM Treaty that is being violated by the Administration was a Cold War treaty, implemented precisely because of Cold War threats. The treaty was adopted because, as has been pointed out, an ABM program just encourages an aggressor to use more missiles. Neither side would have gained from that, which is why ABM became taboo. It's a stupid concept when it's not 100% effective, and for it to be perfected would require its deployment before 100% effectiveness, which in turn would increase the likelihood of a preemptive attack. China, FYI, has already made it clear that they would feel compelled to increase their nuclear arsenal if the US decided to deploy an ABM program that was capable of working.
4.) No ABM system has been more successful than unsuccessful. Differentiation here would just mean a whole lot of programs being labelled unsuccessful, rather than just handling it all with one fell swoop. I agree with you that laser-based systems are more pipe dream than defense program, but even splitting those off from the missile interceptor programs doesn't make the bottom line any different--the shit simply does not work.
5.) $9.14 billion is hardly a drop in the bucket when it's for a program that doesn't work and shows no signs of being workable in the near future. (That figure comes from this NY Times piece Link )
6.) Counterproliferation is far from unworkable. Check this link for a list of resources worth reading (right-hand column). Link This stuff costs money. $9 billion would go a hell of a long way towards counterproliferation.
This case might put a hole in the argument that nobody seems to be making for unilateral US nuclear disarmament, but it certainly doesn't boost the case for ABM.
They might also be provoking preemptive action either by North Korea themselves, or the United States. It's like they are poking a stick at a rattle snake or something.
Bottom line is they want to talk to the United States, and the United States only. 6 nation talks where American diplomats speak through foreign diplomats belittles the North Koreans in their eyes. They want assurances and grievences directly from American diplomats and not this round-robin crap. They want to be taken seriously and until that happens we can expect them to keep poking sticks.
TMH