The Russians have a new toy and Scott Ritter seems to think it means trouble for George Bush's Ballistic Missile Defense System.
On Christmas Eve 2004, the Russian Strategic Missile Force test fired an advanced SS-27 Topol-M road-mobile intercontinental ballistic Missile (ICBM). This test probably invalidated the entire premise and technology used in the National Missile Defense (NMD) system currently being developed and deployed by the Bush administration, and at the same time called into question the validity of the administration's entire approach to arms control and disarmament.
...
the Bush administration's dream of a viable NMD has been rendered fantasy by the Russian test of the SS-27 Topol-M. According to the Russians, the Topol-M has high-speed solid-fuel boosters that rapidly lift the missile into the atmosphere, making boost-phase interception impossible unless one is located practically next door to the launcher. The SS-27 has been hardened against laser weapons and has a highly maneuverable post-boost vehicle that can defeat any intercept capability as it dispenses up to three warheads and four sophisticated decoys.To counter the SS-27 threat, the US will need to start from scratch. And even if a viable defense could be mustered, by that time the Russians may have fielded an even more sophisticated missile, remaining one step ahead of any US countermeasures. The US cannot afford to spend billions of dollars on a missile-defense system that will never achieve the level of defense envisioned. The Bush administration's embrace of technology, and rejection of diplomacy, when it comes to arms control has failed.
If America continues down the current path of trying to field a viable missile-defense system, significant cuts will need to be made in other areas of the defense budget, or funds reallocated from other nonmilitary spending programs. With America already engaged in a costly war in Iraq, and with the possibility of additional conflict with Iran, Syria, or North Korea looming on the horizon, funding a missile-defense system that not only does not work as designed, but even if it did, would not be capable of defending America from threats such as the Topol-M missile, makes no sense.
The Bush administration would do well to reconsider its commitment to a national missile-defense system, and instead reengage in the kind of treaty-based diplomacy that in the past produced arms control results that were both real and lasting. This would not only save billions, it would make America, and the world, a safer place.
Has anyone mentioned this to Paul Martin?
Via babble.
If built, the shield will work for it's intended purpose - funneling dollars from taxpayers to defense contractors.
Exactly, and that is what it's all about. Money. Money for defense contractors run by middle aged, balding, fat white men on an ego trip.
This does represent a major set back. However, the purpose of such a system, if it ever gets up and running, is not to defend against Russian missiles, or Chinese missiles. The idea that such a system would work against the Russians is absurd. The purpose is to prevent "rogue" nations, such as Iran with limited nuclear and missile technolgy from setting up a nuclear umbrella which would deter the US from attacking. The danger for the US is that such Russian technolgy will sooner, or later find its way into the hands of such "rogue" states and then what.
Anyone who really thought the missile defense program would work is not really understanding the situation. First, the missile defense program is essentially the Patriot missile program on a much larger scale and anyone who listens to more than American military propaganda will know that the Patriot missiles rarely succeed in taking down enemy missiles and in last years Iraq war was only successful in taking down an allied aircraft.
But even assuming that they even worked, it is still fairly easy to defeat them by overwhelming them with more missiles than they can defend against. If the missile defense is capable of stopping 10 incoming missiles at ant given time, you just need to fire 20 in to break through. Up the defense capabilities to 20, the other guys can up their capabilities to 30. At best the missile defense will just initiate a new arms race or to stop lesser enemies like North Korea from attacking but even North Korea is not stupid enough to try that as it would guarantee being wiped off the map in a very short period of time.
Its never ending. Remember that episode of bugs and porky pig, the Barber of Seville? Where porky pulls a knife, so bugs pulls a gun, so porky pulls a bigger gun, etc etc until the guns are as big as the planet?
Its easy to play that game with just mental games re: BMD. Imagine if the koreans developed a pop-up nuke which was a sea-based topedo like missle? Instead of driving it through space to get to a target, just let it fly ultra low range or even under water and have it pop-up at the last minute for air detonation.
Its madness to go down the route of BMD. Why do intellegent people even play these games?
YFND.
If Iran were to set up a nuclear umbrella, its primary hostage would not be continental US. The missile shield being proposed is not mobile and would not be able to protect Delhi, Tel Aviv, Istanbul, or Sydney.
The problem with the "rogue state" logic, though, is that rogue states are unlikely to have the resources or the need to build ICBMs. Most so-called rogue states (with the possitble exception of North Korea) are ruled by people who may be nasty or ideological, but also have a keen sense of their own survival.
Why would these states need or want ICBMs? It's far more likely that they would be acquring nukes to use as a stick in regional disputes.
Reagan's push for a missile shield was driven, oddly, by his belief that nuclear weapons were profoundly immoral and his desire to eliminate them entirely. I don't think that's what the Bush administration has in mind.
As for Paul Martin, I doubt very much that the question of the missile shiled actually working ever entered his mind. I suspect his thinking on the issue is entirely about whether he's willing to pay that price to get on better terms with Bush.
The missile defense program, besides being a government welfare program for military contractors, serves to give the illiterate right whingers a false sense of security. Look at how easily the rubes can be convinced they're threatened by phantom menaces. They can just as easily be convinced that Dear Leader's defense shield can protect them. This in turn makes the Republicans look like the great defenders of America while simultaneously serving as more fodder for the canard that Democrats are weak on defense.
Missile defense is simply another propaganda campaign designed to help keep the right whingers in power. And because they've convinced enough of the rubes it's needed to defend against a threat that doesn't exist, it will be considered a success regardless of whether or not the system actually works.
It was Bill Clinton who first supported the Missile Defense program, and Paul Martin will support it. How is this a right wing conspiracy again?
In order to serve such a purpose, it certainly could not be limited to protecting just North America. However, although in its current form the US is limited to shooting down missiles by launching interceptor missiles based primarily in the US, as I understand it the Pentagon hopes to one day be cable of using satellites to shoot down enemy missiles and satellites can be deployed anywhere. I know it is all rather far fetched, but my purpose is not to defend the idea as to make the motive for wanting such a system somewhat intelligible. In the meantime, there is nothing to stop the US from setting up such a missile based system, if they ever get it up and running, to proetect, say, Israel.
Such a system would deter other nations from seeking nuclear weapons. The costs of developing an effective weapons program (i.e, one cable of potentially getting missiles by such a defensive shield) would be that much greater.
With regards to the war on terrorism, the way it would tie in is this. Minus a nuclear umbrella, such nations would be deterred from allying with the likes of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda would not be able to set up a base of operations under someone?s nuclear umbrella let alone carry out an attack on the US and then be able to scurry back under such an umbrella.
Nations can make a perfectly credible nuclear threat absent the possession of ICBMs. Also, terrorist groups can function quite well without state sponsors.
At best, missile defense, even if it were effective, is an amazing misuse of funds that could be better spent on other thigns if the goal is to prevent terror attacks.
Terrorists don't need an umbrella. The invasion of Afghanistan and the removal of the Taliban from power was supposedly to remove the umbrella but bin Laden and his gang are still operating. And in Iraq, the United States removed Saddam Hussein which had no ties to al Qaeda and now affiliated groups of al Qaeda operate almost freely within that country carrying out attacks at will.
Oh, and the easiest way to nuke the United States? Put the nuke on a boat, drive it into a New York harbour, set it off and destory a significant portion of the city in the process. Much easier than developing ICBM's and next to impossible to track back to the source. They won't know what or who hit them. But of course, the focus of Bush is on missile defense and invading other countries, not port security.
How is this a right wing conspiracy again?
Actually it was Reagan who started this mess. BMD is just part of an updated vision of the original Star Wars. And while Clinton was a Democrat, I wouldn't exactly call him left wing.
But in fact I'd call it a corporate conspiracy. They're the ones who'll get all the money.
I agree terrorists do not need state cover to threaten the US. However, it should makes things easier for them. There was no umbrella in Afghanistan David. The worst case situation, I am not saying that this is likely, is Al Qaeda operating out a nuclear state.
Scott Ritter?
Why would anyone wanna listen to the brother of that guy that lived with Janet and Chrissy.
Oh.
Wait.
Didn't know all those pre-Iranian War Iraqi WMDs were actually upstairs in Norman Fells's apartment.
Actually, there's an unbroken, over 40-year history on BMD in the US, going well back beyond Reagan.
These BMD-people need to be stopped, though.
There's no other way to put it.
Nice to finally see Scott Ritter surface again.
Given that he was pretty much the only person who was essentially right about the Iraq war, I would tend to take him seriously.
Of course, hoping that the American government will listen to him is a fantasy.
Scott--
Wouldn't say he was the only one who right, but I agree that Scott Ritter was right on the money.
And remember how hard the neandercon slime machine went after him?
It's an important thing to remember - they only go after those whom they the fear most.
So you don't have a lock on your front door at home because some burglars can pick the lock?
How stupid an argument is that? That some nations can defeat the system, so the system is not worth pursuing? That other nations will behave themselves as long as we're defenseless?
Stupidity reigns supreme!
So you don't have a lock on your front door at home because some burglars can pick the lock?
When it's a hugely expensive lock that usually doesn't work, and can be picked with a toothpick, no.
Especially when all the windows are wide open.
Stupidity reigns supreme!
Well, yes. Especially at the White House.
Think of how much safer America could be if the money spent on missile defence had instead been spent on its conventional military, proper planning for the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, or even a strong and effective coordinated intelligence program...
Uhh, James, you should learn to do some research before you post. The ignorance being displayed by various posters (yeah, its an odd wording, but the more usual word was cited for questionable content) about how much is actually being spent is astounding - perhaps because people have no concept of the size of the U.S. economy.
Paul,
Take a look at how much is being spent on, say, securing nuclear weapons in Russia (hint: at the current pace it's going to take a decade or so before we can secure and track all of them and be sure they aren't being stolen) and then get back to me on whether this is the best use of funds.
Or on the costs of securing U.S. ports. Or on a whole host of other things.
I didn't comment on overall budget priorities, nor on how much of the world's problems should be paid for by the American Taxpayer. (I assume that you have contributed your personal tax dollars to those things you have listed, since you consider them to be important?)
What I pointed out was that the amount being spent on NMD is trivial within the scope of the overall budget of the US Government. Indeed, more is spent on security at US ports than on NMD, although not all of that spending is from government sources.
Paul,
How would I contribute my personal tax dollars to anything? That seems like an odd criticism.
I also didn't say anything about the world's problems, except for the part about securing Russian nukes, perhaps, which is certainly America's problem. Not perhaps in the sense that it "should" be America's problem, but there's no question that such nukes represent a very serious problem for the United States.
In any case, how can you talk about government programs and spending without discussing priorities? My primary objection to NMD is that I view it as a boondoggle and a waste of money. part of being a boondoggle is that the money could be better spent elsewhere.