Constructive gadfly
Published on December 3, 2005 By stevendedalus In Politics

Missile Defense Agency, since Rumsfeld took over has spent billions[ $7.8 billion] on land based star wars for continual testing, none of which has proved operational. Another $7 billion was appropriated for fiscal 2006. In 2004 MDA ran $370,000 over budget, despite the dire needs in Afghanistan and Iraq. The worst part of this is that there are no guidelines to spending, such as “prove weapons are operational and then buy.”

Now, I am not one to fault the Defense Department to try to make new technology work, but in light of the immediate needs of war and no particular threat lurking from future superpowers, it seems to me — and it’s not that we don’t already have strategic missiles — that MDA should put “star wars” on the back burner and pursue it logically and thriftily until new technology and software can be perfected before costly testing. In the meantime, support our troops in battle with the best equipment available. After all, it is not like the Manhattan Project whereby we were in a race to outpace Germany’s rush for the atomic bomb.


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Dec 03, 2005
you have a terrific point, we need to curb spending NOW! and this would be a good place to start.
on Dec 03, 2005
It's the administration brain trust sensing a "gap", to use the old Dr. Strangelove vernacular.

There's a perceived lack of defense from missiles thrown at us by some hypothetical threat. Whether it's North Korea, whose missiles couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the INSIDE or China, whose missiles are exactly like ours because they've been stealing our technology out from under our noses.

Oh, don't forget the former Soviet republics.

Whether the perceived threat is real or imagined, this is where the administration gets the bright idea that we can shoot down missiles after they've already been fired at us.
on Dec 03, 2005
because star wars isn't, and really has never been about missile defense. Missile defense has been the excuse for the R&D for a whole new generation of laser weapons, most probably to be used to disable satillites.

See, I can be all jaded too...
on Dec 03, 2005

It's the administration brain trust sensing a "gap",
Something like the intelligence gap.

See, I can be all jaded too...
WOW! Yes, there would be an awful lot of Direct TV subscribers pissed off, too.
you have a terrific point, we need to curb spending NOW! and this would be a good place to start
Yeah, especially when in five years DOD is planning to spend $60 billion and estimates down the road could be one trillion!

on Dec 04, 2005
i remember reading an article about bush announcing his intention to immediately revive sdi and wondering--considering how easily we could be attacked with nuclear or biological weapons without one missle ever being launched--just how far up his ass his head had to be.

i was still mentally shaking my head about 2 hours later when i heard (i cant see the tv from here) the early morning news anchor announce that a small plane seemed to have accidentally collided with one of the world trade center towers.
on Dec 04, 2005
Missile defense has been the excuse for the R&D for a whole new generation of laser weapons, most probably to be used to disable satillites.


there must be some sorta ratio between the amount of time it takes the us to develop working lasar weapons and the number of years required to sucessfully train iraqi military units?
on Dec 04, 2005
Doesn't anyone here remember ABMs? From the days before ICBM MIRVs? They were limited by treaty to one location in the USSR and here. (Grand Forks, N.D.) with a limited number of interceptor missiles. We pretty much ignored ours after Multiple warheads became the standard but the Russians kept theirs up for a number of years.
MAD was still a guarantee due to the numbers of missiles vice the number of counter missiles. So that was definitely a case of keeping up with the Jones' (Or Ivans as it were)
I am sure Tracey and the Tin Foil Hat brigade would tell us that SDI is to prepare for the invasion from planet Gulbar or some such place.
Way to stay on topic KB.
on Dec 04, 2005
Way to stay on topic KB.


over 20 years of development and we've yet to come anywhere close to hitting a target we ourselves launched. sorry, but there's a definite parallel to the amount of time required to train an effective standalone iraqi fighting force.

both endeavors involve a hole in space into which we seem compelled to toss enormous amounts of cash and effort in return for little if anything of value.
on Dec 04, 2005
over 20 years of development and we've yet to come anywhere close to hitting a target we ourselves launched.


Are you "absolutely" sure of this? If it does work, do you honestly think they're going to tell everyone? Does the military tell us every time they come up with a "new" secret weapon? Nope, don't think so.
on Dec 04, 2005
That's not true, Kingbee. The results have been less than stellar, but there have been successful tests.
on Dec 04, 2005

Here's a scenario:

North Korea makes a deal with Venezuala's Hugo Chavez -- oil in exchange for a handful of medium range nuclear missiles.

What do you think the US response to that SHOULD be?

a) Ignore it.

Invade Venezuala

c) Have some sort of missile defense system

d) Other (please specify)

 

on Dec 04, 2005

Brad just gave you the sceneario.  The Rush?

You want your kids or grandkids to fry?

Extra Krispy with honey bee sause?

on Dec 04, 2005
The results have been less than stellar, but there have been successful tests.


if you can point me to any post-2001 results in which the test scenario wasn't so contrived as to guarantee some sort of success claim and in which the claim was based solely on actually intercepting and destroying targets, i'd be very happy to check it out. prior to 2001, there is nothing which meets those standards.

i'll concede the tests do one thing successfully...coolest outdoor lightshow i've ever seen.,
on Dec 04, 2005
a) Ignore it.
Invade Venezuala
c) Have some sort of missile defense system
d) Other (please specify)


a and c are essentially the same thing at this point.

as for d, why not use the 'web off the west coast with duct tape' plan already proposed for attacks by north korean icbms?

if there was no other choice but invasion, it would sure say volumes about the consequences of cutting off your nose to spite your face. perhaps instead of developing preemptive nuclear attack strategies (or any nuclear strategy other than non-proliferation), we coulda focused on minimizing the chances north korea--or iran--had anything to give chavez?
on Dec 04, 2005
First ship to shoot down a multi-stage missile

I'm looking for the laser test I saw results of once. The link is a missile-to-missile test, but it was successful nonetheless. The whole intitiative Canada opted out of was for a missile based system if I am not mistaken.

People keep acting like "Star Wars" was some big failed experiment, but in reality it never got underway. It wasn't that the technology failed, it was just never supported enough to be undertaken at a credible level.
3 Pages1 2 3