Think I'm overstating? Read the comment from Paul Cellucci, as printed in the Globe and Mail:
“We will deploy,” Mr. Cellucci said. “We will defend North America.
“We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty, its seat at the table, to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming towards Canada.”
This came almost immediately after Canada announced it would not sign on to Bush's missile defense program (perhaps waiting at least until the damn thing shows the first signs of working), and represents rhetoric honed at the Donald Rumsfeld School of Humiliative Diplomacy.
The article goes on to point out that a) a missile being fired at Canada is not exactly on the top of their concerns list, and b) even if it was a serious threat, any attempts to intercept the missile would take place long before it got to the Land o' Backbacon. Which makes the incredibly arrogant tone of the ambassador all the more curious and disturbing, but unfortunately not surprising. If you do something that the Bush administration does not like, be prepared (immediately, apparently) to be demonized, belittled, ignored, mocked and taken out of the loop, in one fashion or another.
Next up: we alienate Guam!
--TJ
The last five out of six tests over the pacific have been successful. It's Patriot missile technology, and not nearly as sci-fi and unrealistic as many are led to believe.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/02/25/missile-test050225.html?ref=rss
Posted by: Zap | February 25, 2005 at 13:48
Come on, it's decades away and you know that, Zap. Have ANY of the "successful" tests not involved homing devices planted in the warhead to guide the intercept missile to it?
Posted by: Torridjoe | February 25, 2005 at 13:53
PDF http://www.acq.osd.mil/mda/mdalink/pdf/05news0008.pdf
Posted by: Zap | February 25, 2005 at 14:08
So is that a "no?"
Asking the DoD about the efficacy of the program is like asking Alberto Gonzales how the torture investigations are going.
And when you say "based on Patriot missile technology," do you mean that in a good way or a bad way? The last I heard about the Patriot system, was that its GWI success was broadly exaggerated. Perhaps it's been improved since then, but the technology isn't near as crucial as the physics...and we ain't got the physics solved.
Posted by: Torridjoe | February 25, 2005 at 14:20
No, it's not a no.
If you read it, you'd know that the systems are deployed. If you'd look around that site, you'd know the testing has been impressive, and if you think they lie, then you can watch the "bogus" videos too. Sometimes it's true that the Left is harmfully negative. I'm all for the reality based community, but not the cynical woe-is-all community.
No, it isn't perfect, but the technology is deployed today, not decades away. Yes, the initial success of PAC1 (first anti-missile Patriot) was exaggerated in Gulf War reports. However, the failure of PAC1 was exaggerated even more.
As far as what is and isn't solved, well a good 90% of the research is cloaked by tip top secret classification and neither you, or me, or some blowhard at MIT know anything for certain. With the exception of the freaky airborne laser, the MDA's BMD systems are all up and running (with a long way to go yet). PAC3 (the current Patriot) is vastly improved, and I'm glad its "on that wall." I know it can work.
It's the Cold War all over again though. Russia claims its super duper pooper sonic ICBM can sail right through, and it probably can, and we'll find the answer (I suspect I know what it is already), and then they will come up with something else. The correct question is can Kim Jong-il or the like get through though, not Russia. And should we defend ourselves against the possibility or just take the hit and nuke 'em back? An anti-missile defense system is little more than the predicted evolution of military weapons from the days of the first sidewinders (heat seekers).
Posted by: Zap | February 25, 2005 at 16:29
Zap, you know as well as I do that it was deployed at the insistence of the President, despite being NOT READY. The ability to do what the systems are designed to do, is indeed not on the horizon. When you say "up and running," that doesn't mean "operational." It doesn't work, and won't for years into the future.
As for whether we should just "take it," the answer is a wholehearted "YES." Why? Because among all the threats facing the US, an intercontinental ballistic missile is by FAR at the bottom of the list. We're exposing ourselves to that which is least likely to occur. And we can take that 10bil a year and do mundane things like inspect containers and coordinate the no-fly lists and work on protecting ourselves from dirty bombs in suitcases.
Posted by: Torridjoe | February 25, 2005 at 16:43
Oh, and when an interceptor missile is able to get near a bogey that is NOT beaming a signal to the interceptor saying "Here I am, big boy!," then I'll concede we've turned the corner. Until then, it is a pie in the sky program and secretive budgetary sinkhole, addressing a problem that ranks near the bottom of our security threats.
Posted by: Torridjoe | February 25, 2005 at 16:44
Whether the system works or not seems largely dependent on which propaganda one reads...but setting all that aside, do we really want our ambassadors lambasting other nations governments in such public, condescending manners?
The arrogance this admin continues to put forth is truly breathtaking. Hopefully the attitude won't be our undoing.
I agree with TJ...terrorists will get us long before Kim will and with our ports and borders wide open we're making their jobs a ton easier than they should be.
Now, if the admin wants to rededicate some of that high end tax cut they insist on to unproven, largely unwarranted missile defense, then maybe. Can't have an active war, a cold war and unnecessary tax cuts at the same time without crippling the economy completely.
Posted by: G Davis | February 25, 2005 at 22:13
"until the damn thing shows the first signs of working."
"Have ANY of the "successful tests not involved homing devices planted in the warhead to guide the intercept missile to it."
"but the technology isn't near as crucial as the physics...and we ain't got the physics solved."
"you know as well as I do that it was deployed at the insistence of the President, despite being NOT READY."
"when an interceptor missile is able to get near a bogey that is NOT beaming a signal to the interceptor saying "Here I am, big boy!," then I'll concede we've turned the corner."
Can you support any of these rantings and ravings? I have a friend and reader from Lockheed who sure wants to know what you're talking about, because they build the targets, and they don't use transmitters, because it isn't necessary. He thinks Raytheon may have 15 years ago in very early testing. The tracking is done through radar, infra-red and some other classified stuff, but the target, zipping through the air broadcasts itself loud and clear for the intercept missile. Technical details can be found in and around the link I provided, and for Pete's sake, are you suggesting we never knocked down a scud in the GW? If we did it was just pure luck? You should read the whole story. PAC3s have knocked down Iraq's missiles in the current war (before Saddam was captured). Their complete use is still classified, but the first two missiles Saddam launched were destroyed in flight by PAC3s.
The point is the testing is going very well, and there is no need for transmitters. A very bizarre conspiracy-type claim from you, torrid.
I find it absurd that you suggest we should just take the hit, too. Especially, when you lump in far more difficult "defense" ideas-- cargo and borders. I hope I don't need to discuss the futility and ignorance of safeguarding them. It seems so obvious. I also think you have a very limited understanding of the MDA's mission. Some 25-35 nations have ballistic missiles. They could slip into the hands of terrorists or be launched from any number of states who could deny the deed. It isn'the hi-tech ICBMs that are the greater concern, but the scudlike BMs. Iran has claimed our Navy would be utterly destroyed in the Persian Gulf by their missiles. Without Aegis our Navy is worthless and defenseless against them. PAC3 is kicking arse, and Russia knows it. They're quite proud of their S400, btw.
About cargo and borders. Why would we make a mess of our ports that would be a thousand times the mess we've made of airports? Have you any idea of the volume we import daily? And why would terrorists bother with shipping it in when busloads of cargo can drive across the border? I'm all for clamping down on the borders, but I get called racist for the thought-- so does Buchanan, and you've said as much. Neither Republicans or Democrats will touch the borders for fear of losing the hispanic vote. Let's face it. If terrorists want to slip explosives or worse into the country, they can and will. But, with the proliferation of BMs, we would be fools not to perfect the technology that can knock them down. Is the multi-billion multi-layered program the best approach? No. It's another handout.
G, you're right about the breathtaking arrogance. It's as embarrassing as it is sickening. You're also right about the hot war and tax cuts crippling us econimically, but until much saner leaders are on the scene, the Cold War will continue to play out, and we should continue to be the global leader in military technology.
Posted by: Zap | February 26, 2005 at 00:41
You're saying you don't recall Bush forcing deployment last fall despite the clear reality that the system doesn't fucking work, and isn't close? I find that hard to believe.
It's been much more recent than 15 years that targets signaled their locations to the interceptors--and they still missed. And the targets fly straight and true, which the missiles of only one or two countries beyond ours do. Read CDI's reporting, or...American Defense, I think.
Yes, the "success" of the Patriots was far overstated. I'll try to find the links tomorrow.
Posted by: Torrid | February 26, 2005 at 01:04
To get the whole and unnecessary story or PAC1 in GW, you have to go to the final 1996 report and ignore the ingoramsous (Postol) from MIT. That system fired 4-8 intercepts per scud. If it hit a scud, Postol recorded 1 hit and 7 misses. Hehe. Iraq fired 88 Scuds. More than half were ignored, deemed harmless. Several others broke up on their own. We shot down two of our own aircraft, both cases were pilot error. We shot down four scuds, directly, another 15-20 indirectly. That system is in the can though. PAC3 is a whole different approach and doing very well.
So, sure, the initial crazy reports by GHWB were way off, but so were the initial reports of how off he was. The truth was in the middle and is ancient history now.
Mostly, I am interested in this target transmitter you're talking about, and I spent some time googling for it.
Yes, I know we deployed Aegis before it was meeting it's goals, but I'd rather be in a fleet with it around that otherwise.
Posted by: Zap | February 26, 2005 at 01:22
Sorry for the late night typos, but I think you can figure out what I'm saying... hopefully. Sheesh, I need to go to sleep.
Posted by: Zap | February 26, 2005 at 01:30
that the truth is in the middle, I can accept. The success was overstated, particularly in the media. But that's not a comforting track record of honesty when it comes to DoD's assessment of the SDI systems.
We'll see what I can dredge up about the homing devices.
Posted by: Torrid | February 26, 2005 at 10:54
Zap, I remember something of what I think TJ is refering to about tests being pushed and failing miserably.
I also remember seeing a discovery channel or somesuch special on the technology that is already available to scan containers without tying up the whole freight system. It's a foreign system and the fella said the US wasn't interested in it.
Maybe it's because I lived through one cold war and saw the resulting waste from it, but I simply can't see how anyone could justify the kinds of expenditures on these sorts of programs that have never shown sure success. Especially in this day with deficits already so high you young folks will be paying them off forever.
It seems there are limited dollars to work with and I think we should use them in the most likely spot for the most terrorists.
Maybe one will get their hands on a nuke. But more likely many more will try coming in through the ports or borders with something as simple as small pox.
It's like I'm watching a rerun of when I was a kid on through high school...the cold war, bomb shelters, nuke silos, Vietnam...it's all a bad dream I hope.
Posted by: G Davis | February 27, 2005 at 23:01
Zap--
Union of Concerned Scientists' BMD timeline:
"July 14, 2001. The fourth intercept test (IFT-6) of the ground-based midcourse system successfully intercepts a mock warhead. Later reports find that this test, like others before it, was aided by the use of a homing beacon in the mock warhead."
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/page.cfm?pageID=565
Here's a piece on the historical pattern of deception and outright lying being done by the military on BMD programs:
http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/JapanTMD.html
Posted by: Torrid | February 27, 2005 at 23:30
Here's a little fyi to add to this mix:
My ex currently works for a major computer chip manufacturer. Previously he's worked for some large defense contractors and some small ones, specifically with computers and tracking systems for missiles.
He tells me that the computer technology required for a successful the Missile Defense System currently doesn't exist.
(Don't shoot the messenger, please)
I personally have zero knowledge of the ins and outs of what's required for this thing to work. But it seems unlikely that it will work without more advanced computer technology.
Posted by: Carla | February 28, 2005 at 15:08
Thanks Carla.
Interestingly, the issue seems to be less about finding the target vehicle in general, as it is differentiating it from non-targets (such as decoys), and executing a collision based on flight paths that are less than true. The test where DoD was excited about the interceptor finding the decoy, ignoring it, and moving to the target, involved a single decoy balloon that was much bigger than the target. The target being primed to seek out the smaller object, obviously that wasn't a very difficult task. Choosing among 10 different "targets," all of the same size but with different markings--now that's hard.
And as I noted earlier I think, nobody who'd shoot a missile at us has anywhere near the technology we do, to keep it on a straight and true flight path. We're still trying to shoot down our own missiles that fly like arrows, not (say) North Korea's, who fly like wounded ducks.
Posted by: Torridjoe | February 28, 2005 at 17:03