This is a post from
DailyKos that I agree with. I am posting it in its entirety.
As early as July, and definitely by September, the Department of Defense may slip
ICBM interceptors into five silos at
Fort Greely, Alaska.
Quote:
September 11, 2001 underscored that our Nation faces unprecedented threats, in a world that has changed greatly since the Cold War. To better protect our country against the threats of today and tomorrow, my Administration has developed a new national security strategy, and new supporting strategies for making our homeland more secure and for combating weapons of mass destruction. ...
I have directed the Secretary of Defense to proceed with fielding an initial set of missile defense capabilities. We plan to begin operating these initial capabilities in 2004 and 2005, and they will include ground-based interceptors, sea-based interceptors, additional Patriot (PAC-3) units, and sensors based on land, at sea, and in space.
- George Bush, Dec. 17, 2002
|
Quote:
"It would be a very preliminary, modest capability. It would be in a testing and learning mode. But also in the event it were needed, it would be able to provide you some limited capability to deal with a limited number of ballistic missiles."
- Donald Rumsfeld, Dec. 18, 2002
|
Quote:
Predictions of how well the system will defeat long-range ballistic missiles are based on limited data. No component of the system to be fielded by September 2004 has been flight-tested in its deployed configuration. Significant uncertainties surround the capability to be fielded by September: [Missile Defense Agency] will not demonstrate in flight tests a critical radar called Cobra Dane before that date or conduct a system-level demonstration, and has yet to test its three-stage boosters as part of a planned intercept. ...
The MDA is not currently considering conducting flight tests under unrehearsed and unscripted conditions.
- Report on Missile Defense by the General Accounting Office, March 10, 2004. (GAO-04-254)
|
Senate Armed Services Committee hearing and interviews, March 11, 2004:
Senator Carl Levin: "Is there any relationship between the fact that the president made a decision to deploy in December of 2002, and shortly thereafter you decided to cancel all these tests?"
Lt. Gen. Ronald T. Kadish, Missile Defense Agency director: "Senator, we didn't cancel those tests, we reoriented, and rescheduled them, put their objectives in different pots." …
Lisbeth Gronlund of the Union of Concerned Scientists: "Every other piece of the time line has slipped. The one thing that has remained constant is the deployment date. That's completely political."
---
Senator Jack Reed: "So at this time, we cannot be sure that the actual system would work against a real North Korean missile threat?"
Thomas P.Christie, the Pentagon's director of Operational Test and Evaluation: "I would say that's true."
Philip E. Coyle, Christie’s predecessor: "Ever since the president made his decision, the priority of the program has been on deployment, not on understanding whether the system works."
Quote:
"The only thing holding back a terrorist detonating a nuclear bomb in the US is the lack of weapons-grade uranium or plutonium needed to make a nuclear device operational. The second they get that capability, they will have no difficulty smuggling that bomb into a US harbor. Fortunately, there are ways to keep this nightmare from becoming a reality.”
- Charles Schumer, January 17, 2003
|
FY 2005 Budget Request for Missile Defense:
$10.2 billion
FY 2005 Budget Request for Port Security grants:
$46 million
The Bush Administration: Wrong on faith-based defense. Criminally negligent on security.
______________________
Ok, those last two lines, the FY 2005 budgets are atrocious. It's a fact that our biggest threat comes from weapons smuggled across the borders and detonated here. Not ICBM's launched from far away nations which assures the complete distruction of the pitcher.
The fact that we spend
20 times more on a system that we know doesn't work and has little to no chance of ever working, than we spend on port security. That's a crime. Especially since the only thing that is holding us back from having secure ports is a lack of funds. The technology and ability is there. We can plug that hole right now if we wanted to. The phantoms of ICBM nukes is not only resting on unproven and faulty technology but it's so far down on the threat chart that it's a crime to spend this kind of money on it when much more deserving programs are languishing.
I fear for this nation if george w bush gets elected for the next presidential term. The security of this nation cannot rest on his shoulders when he misplaces priorities in such an irresponsible manner.