A bit more on National Security and ABM - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Superbelt · 03-12-2004, 02:12 PM

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.

irateplatypus · 03-13-2004, 07:56 PM

Wow Superbelt... I think you get the medal for irresponsible post of the day.

Did you honestly think that we only spend 46 million on port security? Your analysis of those figures indicates that you did.

The Department of Homeland Security website indicates that spending for border and port security increased by 411 MILLION dollars this year alone. That includes 25 million more (on top of last year's budget of 101 million) for just inspecting the freaking containers on cargo ships.

total Homeland Security spending is over 40 BILLION.

If anyone cares to actually examine the facts:
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=3133

a quick google search and five minutes of reading yielded this information. do a little research on senators levin, schumer and reed. i'd think twice before using their grandstanding in a hearing as your primary resource.

man, i know some of my recent posts seem harsh... but you've got to make sure what you are basing your opinions on before you say such critical things.

(as a completely unrelated sidenote: you have the best avatar/byline combo i've seen on TFP... good times)

Superbelt · 03-14-2004, 05:09 PM

The numbers this blog has, and I have seen the budget request myself so I know what it is, is that Bush specifically requested 10.2 Billion dollars for Missile Defense and only 46 Million dollars for port security.

Yes there is other money buried in other programs.

But Bush thinks missile defense is so important to specifically ask for this money for a program that is NOT AS IMPORTANT for our security.

Add in the extra couple hundred million dollars you have brought up and it is STILL only a fraction of what we spend on an unproven and irrelevant (when you consider other threats to our security) program.

03-13-2004, 07:56 PM	#2 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	Wow Superbelt... I think you get the medal for irresponsible post of the day. Did you honestly think that we only spend 46 million on port security? Your analysis of those figures indicates that you did. The Department of Homeland Security website indicates that spending for border and port security increased by 411 MILLION dollars this year alone. That includes 25 million more (on top of last year's budget of 101 million) for just inspecting the freaking containers on cargo ships. total Homeland Security spending is over 40 BILLION. If anyone cares to actually examine the facts: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=3133 a quick google search and five minutes of reading yielded this information. do a little research on senators levin, schumer and reed. i'd think twice before using their grandstanding in a hearing as your primary resource. man, i know some of my recent posts seem harsh... but you've got to make sure what you are basing your opinions on before you say such critical things. (as a completely unrelated sidenote: you have the best avatar/byline combo i've seen on TFP... good times) __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

03-14-2004, 05:09 PM	#3 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	The numbers this blog has, and I have seen the budget request myself so I know what it is, is that Bush specifically requested 10.2 Billion dollars for Missile Defense and only 46 Million dollars for port security. Yes there is other money buried in other programs. But Bush thinks missile defense is so important to specifically ask for this money for a program that is NOT AS IMPORTANT for our security. Add in the extra couple hundred million dollars you have brought up and it is STILL only a fraction of what we spend on an unproven and irrelevant (when you consider other threats to our security) program.