« Baghdad Bob With A Law License | Main | Dell Hell: Now With Smoke And Fire »
August 16, 2006
We are Safer
We are in fact safer.
Here are two articles illustrating the complete failure of imagination of Democrats to look at future threats:
The Air Force's new top commander for space predicted on Tuesday future attacks on U.S. satellites and called for greatly expanded tracking and identification of payloads launched by other countries.
Currently, U.S. efforts are focused on determining if an overseas launch is a ballistic missile or designed to put an object in orbit, then cataloging it over a period that can take weeks, said Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, who heads the Air Force Space Command at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado.
"I say those days are over," he told an annual conference here on the fledgling, multibillion-dollar U.S. anti-missile shield. "If it's a space launch, we can't afford to relax."
Then there is this:
The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency has begun working with Israel to help find ways to counter enemy rockets, a much shorter-range threat than the "Star Wars" mission to block ballistic missiles for which is it known, the head of the agency said on Tuesday.
"We have been working with the Israelis ... as they go through with development of their own indigenous capabilities for that threat," Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry Obering told reporters after a speech at a missile-defense conference here.
"That is not mature. That is still in development," he said of the effort to defeat something he likened to mortar or artillery fire.
The U.S. Missile Defense Agency grew out of the so-called "Star Wars" Strategic Defense Initiative launched by then-President Ronald Reagan in 1983. It is building a multibillion-dollar shield designed to thwart all classes and ranges of incoming ballistic missiles.
Let us recall history:
On March 23, 1983 President Reagan announced a new national missile defense program formally called the Strategic Defense Initiative but soon nicknamed "Star Wars" by detractors. President Reagan's stated goal was not just to protect the U.S. and its allies, but to also provide the completed system to the USSR, thus ending the threat of nuclear war for all parties. SDI was technically very ambitious and economically very expensive. It would have included many space-based laser battle stations and nuclear-pumped X-ray laser satellites designed to intercept hostile ICBMs in space, along with very sophisticated command and control systems. Unlike the previous Sentinel program, the goal was to totally defend against a robust, all out nuclear attack by the USSR.
A partisan debate ensued in Congress, with Democrats questioning the feasibility and strategic wisdom of such a program, while Republicans talked about its strategic necessity and provided a number of technical experts who argued that it was in fact feasible (including Manhattan Project physicist Edward Teller). Advocates of SDI prevailed and funding was initiated in fiscal year 1984. The motivation behind this effort largely collapsed with the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.
Then there was more Democratic obstruction in the Senate during Reagan's Administration:
Senate Democrats were so irrational in their opposition to SDI that they blocked a fourth star for Lieutenant General James Abrahamson simply because he was the director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization. To those who said that the administration could not guarantee a one hundred percent destruction of Soviet missiles, supporters of SDI responded that no military system in the history of mankind ever had or ever could guarantee one hundred percent efficiency. Defense Secretary Weinberger explained that SDI was not a strategic cureall but would "strengthen our present deterrent capability" and help "curb" strategic arms competition.
So to hear the Democrats bellyache about how the Republicans have made this country less safe is a complete joke.
Posted by Aaron at August 16, 2006 12:00 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.lifelikepundits.com/cgi-bin/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/2695
Comments
Long range missile technology is very advanced and only a handful of countries have it. Rather than using a missile, it is much more likely that someone wanting to deliver a nuke would put in a container ship. A very small percentage of these are thoroughly searched. For the money on spent on SDI, we could instead fix a gaping hole in our security which is far more accessible to many more enemies.
Posted by: paul at August 16, 2006 08:07 AM
Ask the Israelies how they felt about katusha rockets reigning down overhead...
And what good does port security due with the weapon is already in the port.
And what about the longshoreman's union...
Posted by: Aaron at August 16, 2006 11:08 AM
Missile security is a lot like a bulletproof vest. It wont stop a head shot, but the cops wear it anyway.
Essentially SDI keeps the resources of a nation-state (like China) from being used openly. The sniffer-detectors and other devices are used in cargo areas. And finding the terrorists and killing them works better than anything.
Posted by: Charles at August 16, 2006 03:07 PM
Hey, if we had all the money in the world, fine.
But how many cops would get a bullet proof vest if it meant they had to give up their gun?
Posted by: paul at August 16, 2006 07:27 PM
*blinks*
How on earth is that analogous?
Posted by: Charles at August 17, 2006 01:09 AM
Not sure.
Just is.
A matter of priorities, I am trying to say.
Posted by: paul at August 17, 2006 06:55 PM
What 'gun' are our armed forces missing because of this bulletproof vest?
Posted by: Charles at August 18, 2006 01:45 AM
A finer net of searches at ports, though Aaron pts. out that they could just blow it up in the bay.
Posted by: paul at August 18, 2006 10:35 AM
How do you blow a mid-flight intercontinental ballistic missile up in a bay?
Before you made that statement, were you aware of how much is being done currently when searching incoming cargo? Because what's not being done is due to time considerations, not money.
Posted by: Charles at August 18, 2006 12:33 PM
First of all, you ship a bomb, you don't need the missile. And you can set it off any way you want.
Hiringmore people, with more Xray machines (whatever they are) would make the process go faster, and would cost money.
Posted by: paul at August 18, 2006 03:05 PM
You don't ship a bomb when there are tactical advantages to delivering the weapon via missile.
And why can't we hire more people if we desire to do so?
Posted by: Charles at August 18, 2006 03:53 PM