[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
4play See other 4play Articles Title: Missile dysfunction (Comparison of Korea and US Systems) Missile dysfunction By Dennis Jett pecial to The Star 06-28-2006 For two countries that are edging toward confrontation, the United States and North Korea have a lot in common. For instance, both have missile systems that don't work. But that's OK, since both have deployed them for political reasons and not military ones. A confrontation is looming because the North Koreans are preparing to test a long range missile, the Taepodong-2, that some say could hit the United States. They have not tested it in eight years, however. And the last time they did, it flew only about 800 miles and failed to go into orbit. Washington is responding to this threat by saying it might shoot the North Korean missile down. The only problem is the U.S. missile defense system is no more potent than the North Korean one. The system's shortcomings are not due to a lack of funds. Since the Reagan administration, the United States has spent $92 billion on the missile defense program. Nearly half that amount was in the last five years, and the Pentagon plans to spend another $58 billion in the next six years. What has all that money bought us? A ground-based system that has not undergone a successful test in four years. A major part of the problem is the Bush administration has pushed for deployment and development at the same time. The result is a system judged to be unreliable by the Government Accountability Office and Pentagon's own inspectors. So much so that the GAO has recommended that the first nine interceptors that have been deployed should be removed from their silos and rebuilt because they are not “appropriate for use in space.” The North Koreans are brandishing an unreliable missile because they want attention and leverage when they negotiate economic concessions in exchange for freezing some of their weapons programs. The dictator in charge, Kim Jong Il, may think he is not being taken seriously and wants the folks at home to know foreigners consider him a major league menace. Less geeky glasses and a new hairdo would be more effective. As for American intentions, it is worth pointing out that the $10 billion a year that goes for missile defense is four times what is spent on energy research and development and five times the entire North Korean defense budget. One might ask which represents a bigger problem for the U.S. — a North Korean missile attack or our dependence on foreign oil? Here's a hint — there is no real threat of a North Korean attack. Intercontinental missiles can be tracked on radar and therefore their origin is unambiguous. Kim knows he would be toast shortly after he launched. Dictators are ruthless, but they are not crazy and they are not suicidal. They get up every day and the only thing on their agenda is survival and maintaining their power. They leave the jihads to others. So what is the purpose of spending so much money on a system that doesn't work when our addiction to imported oil and a couple dozen other problems are far more pressing? Because the purpose of the missile defense system is to defend against Democrats. Anyone not willing to waste $10 billion a year on a worthless missile system is clearly weak on defense. Besides, Republican stalwarts can have a good second career selling themselves to the military industrial complex. Having never worn a uniform does not mean a lack of military experience for those who have been relentless in their support for defense spending. And as the recently convicted, former Congressman Duke Cunningham demonstrated, you don't even have to leave office to do it. So sleep easy tonight, America. Your government is on guard and ready to protect you against a threat that does not exist with a defense system that does not work. Except in elections. Dennis Jett, a former career diplomat, served as ambassador to Peru and Mozambique. He is dean of the International Center and director of the Transnational and Global Studies Center at the University of Florida. Services Subscribe Manage my account Help/FAQ PDF edition RSS feeds Podcasts Photo reprints Search archives Free trial Contact us Advertisement Latest from AP Top stories at this hour NASA: Shuttle fit, ready to dock with ISS New Orleans to unite reconstruction groups Ex-GI accused in Iraq rape had rocky past Columbine gunmen's diaries to be released Army charges officer who refused Iraq duty Kenneth Lay dies of heart disease at 64 Group sues to halt to same-sex benefits Marine held after standoff with police More from AP » Star Multimedia Video » Skate Calhoun County | June 24 Gallery » Skate Calhoun County | June 24 Video » Cleanup at AHS | June 17 Gallery » The Cleanup Process | June 17 Gallery » Alabama Hog Rally | June 2 More » AP Interactives
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#2. To: tom007 (#0)
IMO, this is a load on the line of when the Post used to print shit about the M1 and Bradley back in the early 80's. The THAD (Theater High Altitude Defense) system is undefeated in tests, AFAIK, and the aircraft based laser systems should smoke one of those easily too. Aegis systems can also engage them in boost phase. I'm willing to bet the "failed" launch was actually us smoking the last one...
There are no replies to Comment # 2. End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||