• commentary
  • FRIDAY JULY 7 2006 6:00 PM

Bush: Missile Defense System Totally Would Have Worked... If It Worked

Submitted by legionnaire

Edited by legionnaire

Tags: Bush, missile defense, North Korea

Based on virtually no evidence at all, Bush made the outlandish claim that our totally awesome, kickass missile defense shield coud have shot down that North Korean missile that was recently test fired, we just, like, didn't feel it.

"I think we had a reasonable chance of shooting it down," Mr. Bush said at a televised news conference in Chicago, where he was asked about North Korea's test-firing of seven missiles, including one long-range Taepodong 2.
[...]
"It's hard for me to give you a probability of success," he said when asked if the United States could have intercepted the long-range missile if it had been bound for America instead of splashing down in the Sea of Japan. Then Mr. Bush went on to say there would have been a reasonable chance of picking it off, or "at least that's what the military commander told me." The president did not specificy what commander he was referring to, nor was he asked.

He did say that he had not talked to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld about whether American interceptor missiles could have brought down the North Korean rocket.


I understand that sometimes the press holds politicians to an absurdly high standard when they're giving press conferences or speeches. But in this case, it's hard to imagine the bar being set a whole lot lower than having the president clearly making things up on the spot and then not being called out on it by the press. Seriously. Think about what your day is like at work or in school. If you gave a presentation about an extremely important topic (like, I don't know, national defense?) that consisted of a bunch of unsubstantiated claims without even an attempt to source them or back them up with real information, would you expect to be challenged? And we're not leaders of the free world. Third graders giving book reports have to at least reference the source material.

Since the president doesn't seem capable of doing his homework, it's leaves us to do it for him, something he's probably accustomed to. In 1972 the US reached an accord with the USSR to limit the development of anti-ballistic missile systems (ABMs) with the capability of destroying inbound ICBMs, as their deployment was thought to make a first-strike nuclear attack more feasible without the threat of mutually assured destruction. Reagan pushed the limits of the ABM treaty by developing the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) that did virtually the same thing with some different methods, in what has been retroactively hailed by conservatives as a calculated ploy to bankrupt the USSR. Regardless, it wasn't ever capable of actually, you know, shooting down a missile. Bush I and Clinton both cut funding for SDI but continued to keep some programs going, but even while Clinton was deprioritizing missile defense, conservatives continued to clamor for it, and it ended up in Bush II's 2000 campaign platform.

Despite Democratic complaints, Bush II withdrew from the ABM treaty and pushed forward with his "missile defense shield," and even after spending $8 billion a year on it, and putting some missile systems into active deployment, the real rub is that the damned thing still won't work. Even in controlled test situations where the timing and trajectory of the missile to be downed was known beforehand the interceptors couldn't take it out. And that's a simple situation without any decoys and with only one missile to deal with.

While there may be some room in the modern political climate to debate whether the time has come to develop a missile defense shield, touting the effectiveness of one that clearly doesn't work yet doesn't seem to be in our best interest, especially when your enemy is a nuclear armed, totally unpredictable nut case like Kim Jong-Il.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

Comments
abracadabra

abracadabra

Seattle, WA
April 2004

JUL 07, 2006 06:09 PM

if is a mighty big word for georgie

vampiresoldier

vampiresoldier

Oakland, CA
March 2004

JUL 07, 2006 06:12 PM

I don't know who is more a nut job, Bush or that guy from North Korea.

PRockGirlScout

PRockGirlScout

Portland, OR
October 2005

JUL 07, 2006 06:13 PM

Why consult with the defense secretary on important defense issues? That's just crazy.

MschfMayhemSoap

MschfMayhemSoap

Phoenix, AZ
April 2006

JUL 07, 2006 06:17 PM

I got some rocks. By Bush's logic..... Rocks are perfect for taking out a ICBM...

bones_708

bones_708

Houston, TX
December 2004

JUL 07, 2006 06:21 PM

There were two tests, since your link, of the missile defence system mentioned. The next was also a failure but the last, one year after the one you linked, was a success.


GMD IFT-15 (13 Dec 2005) was a successful flight test. The interceptor missile was launched from the Ronald Reagan test site, located on the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean.


here

They also may have been speaking of Arrow a system developed with Israel that has been successfully tested against med range missiles. These would give some anti-missile capacity if placed in Japan, Australia, or Hawaii.here

ObservingOne

ObservingOne

Monroe, LA
April 2006

JUL 07, 2006 06:53 PM

He said that he'd been briefed by the military commander that there was a good probability of being able to shoot down the missile.

Is there something wrong with that statement?

MschfMayhemSoap

MschfMayhemSoap

Phoenix, AZ
April 2006

JUL 07, 2006 07:16 PM

ObservingOne said:
He said that he'd been briefed by the military commander that there was a good probability of being able to shoot down the missile.

Is there something wrong with that statement?



only that there are many military commanders..... he could be talking about the one supporting the Project to the point where he's willing to lie, saying it'll work, then keeping his fingers crossed and praying he ends up being right.

TheFly

TheFly

Eagle Springs, NC
November 2003

JUL 07, 2006 07:20 PM

I understand that sometimes the press holds politicians to an absurdly high standard when they're giving press conferences or speeches. But in this case, it's hard to imagine the bar being set a whole lot lower than having the president clearly making things up on the spot and then not being called out on it by the press



It astounds me that the media will hound celebrities to death about their lies yet "W" can get by with this shit. On the flip side, who covered this little story? Some times, according how tight a control the government has on such an event, certain questions aren't asked under penalty of incarceration. Bush and Cheney both have staged "interviews" like this where pertinent questions couldn't be asked.

But the fact he can't answer in fact is troubling... how the fuck DID he get re-elected?!

khoos

khoos

HOPEFUL

Ottawa, ON

JUL 07, 2006 07:25 PM

I didn't vote for him wink

wakeangel

wakeangel

Beaverton, OR
October 2003

JUL 07, 2006 07:55 PM

bones_708 said:
There were two tests, since your link, of the missile defence system mentioned. The next was also a failure but the last, one year after the one you linked, was a success.


GMD IFT-15 (13 Dec 2005) was a successful flight test. The interceptor missile was launched from the Ronald Reagan test site, located on the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean.


here

They also may have been speaking of Arrow a system developed with Israel that has been successfully tested against med range missiles. These would give some anti-missile capacity if placed in Japan, Australia, or Hawaii.here



According to your link of the eighteen tests, only five were successful. All five of these were fed flight data of the target. Three were canceled due to accelerated deployment called for by the the President. That leaves ten failures. From what I read all of these interceptors were cobbled together with different guidence systems, boosters and lauch silo equipment. This to me does not spell success.

wakeangel

wakeangel

Beaverton, OR
October 2003

JUL 07, 2006 07:59 PM

What I find interesting is the defense contracting industries profit margins have increased three hundred percent since Dubya was first elected president. Three hundred percent... I'm just sayin'.

Uncle_Screwtape

Uncle_Screwtape

Los Angeles, CA
February 2004

JUL 07, 2006 09:20 PM

TheFly said:

I understand that sometimes the press holds politicians to an absurdly high standard when they're giving press conferences or speeches. But in this case, it's hard to imagine the bar being set a whole lot lower than having the president clearly making things up on the spot and then not being called out on it by the press



It astounds me that the media will hound celebrities to death about their lies yet "W" can get by with this shit. On the flip side, who covered this little story? Some times, according how tight a control the government has on such an event, certain questions aren't asked under penalty of incarceration. Bush and Cheney both have staged "interviews" like this where pertinent questions couldn't be asked.

But the fact he can't answer in fact is troubling... how the fuck DID he get re-elected?!



Here's how:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

PhLaXuS

PhLaXuS

Fort Lauderdale, FL
November 2005

JUL 07, 2006 09:22 PM

ObservingOne said:
He said that he'd been briefed by the military commander that there was a good probability of being able to shoot down the missile.

Is there something wrong with that statement?



Not at all. He is Commander in Chief. That makes him "the military commander", I guess...

Now he's gone schizoid on us in addition to everything else. We need to order a hooker to his room. Misspell Oval Office...maybe change the v to an r. Good times, good times...

bones_708

bones_708

Houston, TX
December 2004

JUL 07, 2006 10:03 PM

wakeangel said:

bones_708 said:
There were two tests, since your link, of the missile defence system mentioned. The next was also a failure but the last, one year after the one you linked, was a success.


GMD IFT-15 (13 Dec 2005) was a successful flight test. The interceptor missile was launched from the Ronald Reagan test site, located on the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean.


here

They also may have been speaking of Arrow a system developed with Israel that has been successfully tested against med range missiles. These would give some anti-missile capacity if placed in Japan, Australia, or Hawaii.here



According to your link of the eighteen tests, only five were successful. All five of these were fed flight data of the target. Three were canceled due to accelerated deployment called for by the the President. That leaves ten failures. From what I read all of these interceptors were cobbled together with different guidence systems, boosters and lauch silo equipment. This to me does not spell success.



Well, thats the point. It was a new weapons system so the early test were not performance tests but development tests. I say this not to assert the effectiveness of the system, but rather to give everyone more complete info since we were given the results of a test over 1 1/2 years ago not the latest one less than a year past.

I also indicated that there were other possibilities for interception than just one.
Here was one that just took place near Hawaii.

calami00

calami00

I'm lost
November 2005

JUL 08, 2006 01:12 PM

just more evidence that this administraition was put into place to feed the military industrail complex.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

featured interviews