I'm a traitor, so are the majority of troops.

C.I.R. Press Editorial

IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE PRESIDENT, THEY ARE TRAITORS TO AMERICA, AND SO ARE ALL OF THEIR SUPPORTERS. IMPEACH! ANYONE IN CONGRESS WHO REFUSES TO SAVE OUR UNION FROM THESE TRAITORS BY DOING NOTHING NEEDS TO BE RECALLED. SAVE OUR TROOPS!!! SAVE OUR SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS AND JOBS. FEED OUR HUNGRY AND POOR! SAVE THE DROWNING PEOPLE IN NEW ORLEANS! ANYONE WHO MENTIONS PARIS HILTON ONE MORE TIME MUST DIE! -Roseanne Barr

UNDISCLOSED -- Ahh, of course. I am a traitor to my country. From a lunatic I take that accusation as a badge of honor. Feed our hungry and poor? Maybe I missed it but I don’t remember Roseanne running around using all her money to do that. Save the drowning people in N.O.? Get a calendar! There are no people drowning in N.O. that we are to save right now. There are just as many people drowning there as there are anywhere else in the country that has water. Katrina was 2 years ago!

Why do I have a smile on my face? Because I am being told how to be a “good” American by someone who decided it would be funny to savage our NATIONAL ANTHEM at a baseball game. That was a hoot Roseanne. Those troops you "support," the majority support the President. So can you explain to me how you attack "traitors" while at the same time "support them"? One or the other! All I have left to say is SAVE THE NATIONAL ANTHEM, EXECUTE THOSE WHO HAVE ABUSED IT, AND (drum roll) PARIS HILTON! Bring it Roseanne.

Former President Bill Clinton on Friday cast doubt on the effectiveness of a planned U.S. missile shield, deriding it as a "colossal waste of money".

If that is so true why did you sign the National Missile Defense Act in 1999? To develop and deploy a system “as soon as technologically possible.” Those like Clinton seem to think that development happens and you just drive the pretty new machine out of the shop. No, we develop the best possible system and after deploying it we improve it. It is those with minds like his that would have prevented the US from landing on the moon. Last time I checked the Wright brothers had a few problems along the way, I suppose they should have given up.

What is wrong with the “we can't do it” Americans????? Where have all the “we are America and can do anything” Americans that made this country what it is today.

"He wanted the Russians to have it, he wanted everyone to have it," Clinton said. "Unless they work better than I think they do, it's a colossal waste of money."

With all due respect, they do you moron. I can’t stop people from believing the lefties rants that nothing works. Nothing ever works. Even things that they some up with, they complain don’t work. Nothing ever works in their eyes. But for a former President to complain about the needs and concerns of another country over the United States, his own country, is the EXACT reason why Clinton failed to fight terrorism. I would rather piss off other countries, fight terrorism, and have a MD system then try to concern myself with the feelings of the neo-Soviets.

Roseanne Clinton missile defense Soviet Union

USSR Watch 2

C.I.R. Press Editorial

UNDISCLOSED – The Soviet Union is once again ratcheting up the rhetoric aimed at the US like they did in the Cold War. The only problem is they are not the force they were then. Between the fall of communism and their grip on vast areas they failed. However, as the months pass the (need I remind you) “ex-“KGB President Putin has taken steps back towards the good ol’ days. The steps he has taken have even had some on the left, and those that hate America peeved.

It was over a year ago that the Soviet President was announcing to the world that they developed a new stealth cruise missile that is capable of penetrating any missile defense system. Ok, so quit your bitching about the US getting allies (don’t you lefties like them) to allow us to place a nominal number of interceptors that could counter a rogue missile launch towards the US or Europe. Putin claims our plan will turn Europe in to a “powder keg.” Only thanks to you, Mr. Putin.

Quite frankly I don’t understand why 10 missiles with hit-to-kill vehicles on them (no explosives involved) would concern you. I cannot remember the exact quote but he went on to speak about the protection of Europe and how important that is. I would say that stopping missiles against hitting the European countries is a good way to start that protection. As I have said an uncountable number of times 10 interceptors in no way counteracts the Soviet Union’s ICBMs! We fought that war and won. Although it seems as though we didn’t, we didn’t get rid of all the cockroaches and left one communist loving spook that happen to become President.

And to President Putin, I ask if your super-duper special missiles are so amazing then why the concern over our missile defense? We acknowledge that our system cannot defend against a full attack from the USSR. So either your super missile is not so super. Or you want to cause problems. Tie that in with the fact that a year ago while yapping about your new missile you brought up our “ally” Chirac and went over the system with him. Oh also at the time you were going to be inviting Hamas to come for a slumber party.

Now why would I have any concern of the Soviet Union complaining about our missile defense system when he is meeting with terrorist organizations, detailing secrets to our enemy Chriac, and boasting of new missiles left and right able to penetrate ANY missile defense system the US has and/or develops?

OH YEAH (just remembered)...

While we are talking about creating "powder kegs" President Putin, how about YOUR sale of SAMs to Iran at a very interesting time!?

USSR Putin Europe missile defense MDA BMDS

USSR Watch 1

C.I.R. USSR Watch

"For the first time elements of the U.S. strategic nuclear system are appearing on the European continent," Putin said on Friday.

The Soviet President is lying and he must know that these systems in no way endanger the USSR. We are not placing nuclear weapons there. For those that do not understand how the Missile Defense system works (their lame brained ranting: example), brief intro. The radar detects a launch determines which missile to use. The missile launches and directs a “hit to kill” vehicle into the incoming missile. The object literally hits the warhead and uses kinetic energy to destroy it. This is not the old nuclear tipped Nike system as the Soviets would lead you to believe.

We can already monitor military activities in the USSR. To equate this BMDS with our “strategic nuclear” force is a joke. They want to fuss about this to try and maintain they are a force to be reckoned with. In reality as the military top brass conclude: “Moscow's top brass say the missile shield does not pose any immediate military threat for Russia…” Believe me they are more worried about our ICBMs, SLBMs, and B-2s. This is a farce and just like good communists they are having a show trial of sorts.

USSR Putin Europe missile defense MDA BMDS

Missile Defense and Russian Threats.

C.I.R. Press Editorial

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Currently the MDA (Missile Defense Agency) has planned positioning some 10 interceptors and radar in Europe to protect our assets and allies on the continent from aggressors such as rogue nations like the DPRK and Iran. Russia is using this as an excuse to come after the United States. The system would have no impact on Russia due to the location of the interceptors a missile launch from Russia would be off and too far in to its flight before the radar could pick it up, establish a flight trajectory, and fire an interceptor. That and the fact, I will mention again later, that 10 interceptors can not take out thousands of missiles and warheads that Russia has.

It is only a matter of time before we start hearing the people that say “the end is near” and start the claims that President Bush is trying to bring the world to the brink of Nuclear War. This is just a joke. I have to walk a fine line when commenting about MDA activities but this sentence really got to me:

“Frank-Walter Steinmeier says, because of the strategic nature of the project and its close proximity to Russia, Washington should have included Moscow in the talks from the beginning.”

Really, did Russia keep us in the talks when they developed “stealth” cruise missiles, or how about selling arms to Iran, or launching Iranian satellites in to orbit? Some of you may not remember but it was recently that Russia was firing off a new cruise missile with large range and Putin touted the fact that this missile was “stealth” and thereby could penetrate any missile defense system. Think about it, who else has missile defense systems? Basically the United States and Israel. The “ex-“spy turn leader threatened the US between the lines. Why are we not supposed to respond? In addition Russia has sold state of the art surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) to Iran, perfect timing at a time where a possible (I say possible) air strike might be necessary to stop Iran who again yesterday spat in the faces world via the U.N. And SECSTATE Rice came back with a semi-strong statement:

"I think it is unfortunate that the Russian head of strategic rocket forces would come out and say that somehow Poland and the Czech Republic would now be on the target list of Russia. I think that was an extremely unfortunate comment," Rice said in Berlin after talks with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.”

So to the “it’s America’s fault” crowd please explain to me how our use of DEFENSIVE weapons causes the once super-power to threaten essentially the U.S. and other countries is US causing the situation. That is like looking at two people in a street fight and blaming the whole thing on the guy that doesn’t wasn’t to fight and is only putting his arms up to block incoming punches. This mindset, via the KGB agents government makes me really think that Cold War II is on its way.

In addition for Russia to be complaining is a joke! This is to prevent DPRK or Iran who have a minimal number of weapons and a minimal number of delivery missiles. And I in turn go to the good SECSTATE to make the point:

“Anyone who knows anything about this will tell you there is no way that 10 interceptors in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic are a threat to Russia, that they are somehow going to diminish Russia's deterrent of thousands of warheads."

Yesterday, Lt. General Obering (Director of Missile Defense Agency) spoke to the press regarding this issue.

“Here’s what we’re concerned about,” Obering said. “We know that rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran are very much interested in ballistic missiles and that technology, not only for the operation of these missiles, but to be able to have them for coercion and for intimidation purposes.”

In General Obering’s comments he commented upon what we always hear from the lefties, the misconception that MD does not work… but as he said, that is false and there are the test results to prove it. 24 successful hit-to-kill tests since 2001, that does not sound like a “failure” to me. Here is a link to the most recent missile defense piece I have done which in turn includes links to all other MD articles I have done. In addition please read Mike’s America Dem Not Serious About Missile Defense.

Missile Defense Progress...

C.I.R. Press Editorial

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Missile defense is again making progress. As noted over at Mike’s America a new article came out with Brigadier General O’Oreilly saying he is confident that the homeland should be defended within a year. This has come on the heels of a successful test at the Pacific Missile Range Facility. As the continual testing goes on of our systems White Sands Missile Range has become unacceptable as a testing ground. The defense missiles now testing cover too much ground and would go out of the range. (This is where “Trinity” the first nuclear bomb was detonated, to give you perspective on the amount of ground these systems cover.)


Complimenting the Patriot (PAC-3) the THAAD can reach out further but is still mobile. People do not realize that much of the missile defense systems focus not only on protecting the homeland but also our interests (military and non-military) abroad.

“The Ballistic Missile Defense System now in development and testing will be capable of providing a layered defense for the U.S. homeland, its deployed forces, friends and allies against ballistic missiles of all ranges in all phases of flight. The higher-altitude and theater-wide protection offered by THAAD provides more protection of larger areas than lower-tier systems like Patriot alone. THAAD can be transported by air to wherever it is needed worldwide, and consists of radar, fire control unit, missile launchers, and interceptor missiles.” (MDA News Release Jan 27)


As the flight testing for the airframe continues, the ABL (Airborne Laser) will now fire its weapon in flight. This modified 747 tracks missiles in theater and destroys them after launch (phase 1 of flight).

To show you how the entire system is designed to work, I stumbled across this animation which I am sure many will call science-fiction. It is a pretty good demonstration of the possible results if the MDA is supported. This is in no way an official Government video. However, the components used do exist.

To those who want to post and say “This will never work” or “What a dream.” Well…

This will never work...

What a dream...

Did those things happen overnight? No. Were they free? No. Were there no failures along the way?” Of course there were. Those that want to say MD is expensive and you don’t want to pay for it, fine. Those that want to say “it will never work” : If you had been in charge we would still be taking ships to and fro Europe and around the world.

-md

Other Missile Defense posts on C.I.R.: 1, 2, 3, 4
Technorati Tags: missile defense, MDA, ICBM, ABL, THAAD, PAC-3

Mobile sea-based defense.

C.I.R. Press Editorial

WASHINGTON, D.C. – I apologize I have not been around for a week but I don’t always have enough time to throw up a “gone fishing” message when I need to leave town. I cannot remember at this moment who it was that asked about “when a working missile defense system would be operational”, and there is much more to the entire system but my focus has been much on the land based assets. But here is another aspect and it is about time I give a little credit to the Navy. Here is another example that we are striving towards a successful system and you are getting your monies worth.

By year's end, the Navy will have at least six ships able to track down and destroy ballistic missiles in space.

As it works to expand a decade-old program, the Navy is upgrading 18 guided missile cruisers and destroyers, including two in Norfolk,
to counter missile threats.
...
In an international crisis, the United States has traditionally relied on aircraft carriers to respond, according to Rear Adm. Brad Hicks, director of the Missile Defense Agency's Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense program.

Now, he predicts, "it won't be too long - in a couple of years - when the national command authority will ask: 'Where are the Aegis ships?' "
...
The guided missile cruiser Shiloh, formerly based in San Diego, was able to detect, track and destroy an incoming missile at least 100 miles out in space during a test in June, Hicks said.
...
The Navy will have converted 10 Aegis-equipped destroyers to long-range tracking ships by the end of this year. However, they will not be able to shoot down incoming missiles until they obtain additional upgrades. Six other vessels, to include guided missile cruisers, called "engagement ships," will be able to track and shoot down missiles.

So many things are making progress and success is being had. One of our main problems now is one we had for years with everything military but especially shown in aircraft. Speed. Props turned to jets. Planes became more aerodynamic and faster. And how was the best way to over-fly the USSR? Design the SR-71 to just outrun any G-A missiles. Well now we have to hit missiles. So the hurdles at hand are designing faster missiles, a problem which is moving along and being solved as we speak.

-md

Also reference: Innovation and the BMDS, "Every test has failed." News to me!
Technorati Tags: nuclear, missile defense, BMDS, BMDO, navy, ICBM

"Every test has failed." News to me!

C.I.R. Press Editorial

UNDISCLOSED – This post is another in what I foresee as a series of pieces about Missile Defense. No, I am not going to argue the cost of the system because I think it is a high priority and should be on the front burner and get the attention it deserves. I am sure there will be replies saying it is too expensive and that is fine. I am not debating the cost… DoD programs in development are very expensive.

Rob and others have done a good job at putting budget numbers up to try and cement their stance. That is fine, this is my response to those that don’t debate the facts or cost but simply hide behind the uniformed and ignorant line of “every test has failed.” No they have not And this LONG piece is the proof.

“In laying out this picture of the threat our nation faces, I’m reminded of the observation of the Marquis of Salisbury: ‘If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe.’ To extend this to the context of missile defense, let me go two further: If you believe our missile defense critics, nothing will work. If you believe passionate advocates, we can do it tomorrow.”

“The first systems we will deploy provide close-in defense to intercept a short-range missile in its terminal phase. These include the Army’s PAC-3, expected to be operational later this year.”

“Currently we have a small, 120 pound kill vehicle with its own guidance and sensing system. Once lifted into space and pointed in the right direction, on its final leg, it can steer itself into the target and obliterate the warhead by violent impact… This is called hit-to-kill — hitting a bullet with a bullet. Traditional explosives don’t work well in space, and the nuclear tipped interceptors on which we relied 25 years ago — and on which the Russians still rely — have major political and operational drawbacks.”

“We’ve achieved success with hit-to-kill not once, but seven times out of the last ten attempts in the past two years, with three different systems. … Our NMD program, for example, has had one hit followed by two well-publicized failures in our three intercept flight tests so far.

I relearned a basic truth in missile defense: that success occurs in private and failure in full view. That they were well publicized is an understatement. Despite our high profile failures, we have made significant progress in developing this system.”

“This is rocket science, and it is difficult, but not impossible. Seven hundred years ago, the current wisdom held that sailors who ventured too far from land would fall off the edge of the Earth. Columbus proved them wrong. Seventy years ago, naysayers were saying that rockets wouldn’t work in space because there was no air to push against. Robert Goddard proved them wrong. Seven years ago, critics were still saying we couldn’t hit a missile in space. We’ve done it. Now they say, ‘OK, you can hit it. But it will be fooled by decoys and countermeasures, so you shouldn’t build it.’"

Lt. General Ronald Kadish, USAF
March 2, 2001

List of tests
Nov 30, 1993 : The Army carried out a successful test of the Extended Range Interceptor. The ERINT collided with the warhead of a STORM target vehicle. This warhead contained a cluster of 38 pressurized, water-filled containers designed to simulate toxic chemical submunitions.

Feb 15, 1994 : An Extended Range Interceptor (ERINT) hit a ballistic missile target vehicle in a test. The target was a nose cone carrying a simulated chemical warhead.


Jan 24, 1997 : A modified Standard Missile 2 Block IVA successfully intercepted and destroyed a Lance missile target. During the test, the interceptor successfully transitioned from radar guidance to its infrared guidance system prior to destroying the target with its blast fragmentation warhead.

Feb 7, 1997 : BMDO and the U.S. Army's Space and Strategic Defense Command carried out a test in which a Patriot Advanced Capability-2 (PAC-2) missile successfully intercepted a theater ballistic target missile. The target missile was fired from Bigen Island, Aur Atoll, toward the Kwajalein Atoll; the interceptor missile was fired from Meck Island in the Kwajalein Atoll and intercepted the target missile over the Pacific Ocean. A Patriot Guidance-Enhanced Missile was also fired at the target, but destroyed itself because the PAC-2 missile had already destroyed the target missile. The target missile had the characteristics of a variant of the Scud missile.

May 12, 1998 : (Failure. But note that some excess costs by such failures were picked up by L-M.)This was the fifth straight failure to intercept for THAAD. The fourth failure earlier had triggered major concern about the program… [resulting in] an agreement with Lockheed-Martin whereby the company would pay the government as much as a total of $75 million in case of later failures in the test program.

Mar 15, 1999 : BMDO and the U.S. Army conducted the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile Seeker Characterization Flight (SCF) test. Preliminary data indicated that the test was successful. The objectives of the test included collecting data and analyzing the system/missile capability to detect, track, and close with its target, gathering data on the PAC-3 missile seeker in a flight environment, and evaluating performance closed-loop homing guidance in flight. While interception was not a specific objective of the SCF, the PAC-3 missile did intercept the Hera target missile.

Jun 10, 1999 : THAAD successfully intercepted a Hera target missile. This test ended a string of six failures.

Aug 2, 1999 : The 11th flight test for the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) defense missile system was completed successfully, when the THAAD interceptor struck a Hera target missile. For the first time in FT-11, THAAD intercepted a target outside the earth's atmosphere. This was also the missile's first intercept of a warhead that had separated from its booster. The difficulty of the test was further increased because cooling of the target in outer space reduced the ability of the missile's infrared sensors to detect it.

Sep 16, 1999 : The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and the U.S. Army today conducted a successful intercept test of the PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missile. Test objectives included a body-to-body intercept of a threat representative of a tactical ballistic missile target; a demonstrated capability of the ground system and missile to detect, track, and engage the target, and to collect data to evaluate missile homing functions.

Oct 2, 1999 : BMDO and the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command successfully carried out the IFT-3 NMD test. A modified Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) target vehicle was launched from Vandenberg AFB, California; and a prototype NMD interceptor was launched approximately 20 minutes later and 4,300 miles away from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The intercept occurred at approximately 7:32 p.m. PDT and demonstrated the ability of the exoatmospheric kill vehicle to intercept and destroy a ballistic missile target outside the atmosphere. The intercept vehicle weighed about 120 pounds and was equipped with two infrared sensors, a visible sensor, and a small propulsion system. The interceptor's seeker system located and tracked the target and then guided the kill vehicle to a body-to-body impact with the target. The test demonstrated the power of a "hit to kill" interceptor to totally destroy and neutralize a warhead carrying a weapon of mass destruction-nuclear, chemical or biological.

Feb 5, 2000 : A PAC-3 missile successfully intercepted its Hera target. The Hera had been launched from Fort Wingate about five minutes before the launching of the Patriot.

Mar 15, 2000 : The Army completed flight test MFT-3B. In this test, a PAC-2 production missile was fired from a PAC-3 launcher and "successfully engaged" a target that was towed behind a MQM-107 drone. The purpose of this test was to "demonstrate the ability to launch a standard Patriot missile from a PAC-3 launcher and collect reliability data on the production missile round."

Oct 14, 2000 : The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and the U.S. Army completed Development Test-6 (DT-6) in the Patriot program. This was a complex test involving three targets and two interceptor missiles. The test entailed a simultaneous engagement using a PAC-3 and a PAC-2 missile and two targets, one a ballistic missile, the other an air-breathing drone. One of the principal objectives of the test was to demonstrate system capability to engage and destroy a maneuvering tactical ballistic missile reentry vehicle with a PAC-3 missile and a sub-scale air-breathing target with a PAC-2 missile. The test also aimed to demonstrate PAC-3 seeker acquisition and tracking of a target with a second object present in the seeker's field of view. The targets used in the test were a tactical ballistic target (STORM) and an MQM-107 drone (two drones were actually launched although only one was targeted). During this highly successfully test the PAC-3 missile intercepted and destroyed the STORM target. While the PAC-2 missile did not destroy its sub-scale drone target (MQM-107), the drone did appear to be damaged.

Oct 19-21, 2001 : A poll conducted during this period by the Gallup Organization showed that 70% of the American people favored spending the money needed to build a missile defense system. This was up from 53% in a 14-16 July poll.

Dec 3, 2001 : BMDO and the U.S. Army successfully completed Integrated Flight Test 7 (IFT-7) in the Ground-Based Midcourse Segment portion of the overall missile defense program. This was two straight successes and brought the count in the intercept test series to three successes out of five attempts.

Jun 23, 2004 : In a Missile Defense Agency radar test, an Aegis destroyer, the USS Paul Hamilton detected and tracked the flight of the unarmed Air Force intercontinental ballistic missile after it was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The ship-based radar passed data about the in-flight ballistic missile to the Ballistic Missile Defense command and control center at the Joint National Integration Center in Colorado, marking the first time a Navy ship equipped with advanced Aegis radar and a ground missile defense system has successfully passed information about a missile. The ship detected the friendly missile when it came above horizon and tracked it for about 700 miles. The test was an important step in linking the entire missile defense system together.

Jul 29, 2004 : An Arrow missile successfully intercepts a ballistic missile target off the California Coast. The test was part of the joint U.S. - Israeli Arrow System Improvement Program.

Sep 2, 2004 : The Army successfully conducts a flight test of the PATRIOT Advance Capability-3 (PAC-3). The test demonstrated the systems capability to track, engage and intercept a short-range tactical ballistic missile and a low-altitude cruise missile target. A THAAD radar system was used to track the targets during the test.


And ballistic missile defense is not needed?

If every test has failed, how am I able to provide over 10 examples of success? And those are the tests in public knowledge. Those show the specific interception tests, none of the ground, simulation, or just flight tests.

-md

Also reference: Innovation and the BMDS.
Technorati Tags: nuclear, missile defense, BMDS, BMDO

Innovation and the BMDS

C.I.R. Press Editorial

WASHINGTON, D.C. – One of the biggest issues that people bring up is that the Ballistic Missile Defense System is a waste of money because it doesn’t work. I have two reactions to that assessment. Thank God we have not yet had to prove it via battle-test. Second, it does work. People fail to realize this is a system including land, air, and sea assets. Have there been failures in the testing of some assets, yes. I will not try to hide that. Cars were failures, the Titanic sank, many things have failed does that mean we end any and all usage? I liken it to airbags. Airbags are expensive things, you pay for them to be in your car… and likely will never ever use them. But in the rare event you need them, they are there for you. Think of the BMDS as the nations airbags. Just one component of the over all safety features in the car that you pray you never have to use. As well as insurance… my driving and added training makes me confident that I don’t need insurance. Law requires it, but even if it wasn’t required I will still spend the money knowing I will never use it.

Over the times of civilization there had come times when great leaps in technology were thought to be ahead of their time. Maybe others just give up but we are America, we should not be giving up… sometimes we do. For example look at the following photographs.

The “flying wing” B-35 was a dream in an genius’s head that was developed and went from prop power to jet power in the B-49. As time went on people said it can’t be used, or that it was a generation before its time. His love was gone and Northrop left the aviation industry. Only to later in his life find out about the newest and possibly most technologically advanced aircraft in the world… the B-2 Spirit was the spitting image of his work. What took computers today he had essentially done with pen, paper, and brains so many years ago.

So for those against the missile defense systems why wait? Why put off something that is inevitable? Doing so only leaves open another way of attack from country or terrorists elements. I personally think we need to spend the money on defense before other things. Why in God’s green earth did we allow federal money to be used to repair the stadium in New Orleans? Any one that wants to talk about the wasting of money I would really like an explanation as to why federal money to a stadium is more important than say… BMDS?

So let us look at the requested amounts and how much they are granted:

So let’s see who really was for and against BMDS. Mid to late 90’s the President asked for less money, but by ’96 Congress started to provide more money than even the Democratic President requested. Then in ’02 the President pushed for more money and congress delivered. Sometimes giving a little more or little less. But with the threat obvious those with the safety of the nation looked to the future and wanted to prevent any horrific attack a nuclear armed missile would unleash.

It was nearly 30 years between the end of the YB-49 and the recall and start of the B-2 Spirit. Missile defense has been in the making since before the YB-49, around the time of the first V-2 rockets terrorizing England. Closer to our time it was in 1976 that the Safeguard system was closed and for some time we had no defense. As so many on the left say today “President Bush needs to listen to the generals” that is exactly what President Reagan did in 1983 when he received a unanimous recommendation from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to implement the SDI program.

In 1993-94 there was a huge drop in funding for missile defense under President Clinton. He split the systems up, taking some of them off the defense acquisition table. Funny how that was timed in the years surrounding our good friends at the New York Times placing an article on their front page that said the HOE (Homing Overlay Experiment, one version of a possible new system) was not actually a success. This was a test done in June of 1984 yet the article appeared on the front page in 1993. But the test was proven not to have been rigged by the Pentagon and General Accounting Office (GAO) when they refuted the article.

Then there are the complaints from the left that President Bush is just leaving problems for the next President. Well it was on September 1, 2000 that President Clinton announced he was too worried about violating the ABM Treaty so he would not be deploying the system to Alaska. That is right, he was overly concerned about everything BUT the safety of America, and in that speech left this problem to the next President.

Thankfully President Bush saw the need for the system and if it required a change in policy to protect the US, then that is what needed to be done. So on December 13, 2001 he announced that the US would withdraw from the ABM Treaty. He also realized that over the years we would develop weapons systems and in the effort to make them perfect spent so much time testing them that they were obsolete when they reached the battlefield. So he changed some regulations allowing the typical ORD to be avoided and for new systems to be put online as quickly and as safely possible.

“The deployment of missile defenses is an essential element of our broader efforts to transform our defense and deterrence policies and capabilities to meet the new threats we face. Defending the American people against these new threats is my highest priority as Commander-in-Chief.”
— President George W. Bush, December 17, 2002

With Iran trying to acquire nuclear weapons and missile technology, North Korea trying to develop nuclear technology and improve upon their ICBMs… and announcing they will have to launch missiles at the US if sanctions are imposed. How can anyone not see the threat and want to safeguard against it? The missile threat has been around far longer than our terrorist threat. We must guard against both and not open ourselves to a missile attack because we divert all resources into other threats. That is a recipe for disaster, and with nukes… one hell of a disaster.

-md

Technorati Tags: democrats, republicans, missile defense, BMDS, ICBM, nuclear, North Korea, Iran, ABM Treaty, President, military, Reagan, Bush, Clinton