Posted on 03/21/2008 4:49:12 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Perhaps it is fitting that the 25th anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" speech falls on Easter Sunday. After all, many had believed Reagan's grand plan for a system that would render Moscow's nuclear-tipped missiles "impotent and obsolete" died along with the Soviet Union. But "Star Wars" has been resurrected, and has been standing guard over America's skies since 2004. But the more than $120 billion spent over 25 years to build the "Star Wars" missile shield has not left the U.S. less vulnerable to attack - some would argue that it has done exactly the opposite, by diverting resources away from dealing with more urgent and plausible threats.
Those who fear a missile strike on the American mainland from North Korea or Iran - not that either is anywhere close to achieving such capability - the investment in a missile shield, even one whose efficacy is far from clearly established, may seem worthwhile. To those who believe the more salient and insidious threats are those of the type we experienced on 9/11, this shield against a handful of rogue missiles represents an unfortunate diversion of funds that could be used far more effectively to defend the U.S.
The growing consensus among national-security professionals is that a deadly weapon targeting the U.S. is far more likely to be delivered hidden in a shipping container than in the warhead of an intercontinental ballistic missile. But the $10 billion a year the Pentagon devotes to missile defenses is almost twice the amount the U.S. spends on defending the nation's borders and ports from smuggled weapons.
The nation "continues to assign a higher priority to programs designed to confront conventional military threats, such as ballistic missiles," says terror expert Stephen Flynn, "than [to] unconventional threats, such as a weapon of mass destruction smuggled into the United States by a ship, train, truck or even private jet." The same logic led the country to spend 20 times more, last year, on protecting military bases than on safeguarding the infrastructure of U.S. cities. "We essentially are hardening military bases," Flynn told Congress recently, "and making civilian assets more attractive, softer targets for our adversaries."
The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, working out of Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado, has military officers peering at computer screens 24/7, looking for telltale signs of missile launches. An array of satellites and a huge floating radar in the Pacific are linked through those officers to ground-based missiles in Alaska and California and interceptor missiles aboard Navy warships. Since 2001, the Pentagon has shot down 34 out of 42 test missiles it has targeted. Critics contend the tests don't replicate real-world conditions, because the timing and trajectory of the target "incoming" missiles are known beforehand to those trying to shoot them down. These test "attacking" missiles also don't deploy accompanying decoys designed to confuse any interceptors. Pentagon officials say today's system is needed because rogue states might develop their missiles in secret, and fire them at the U.S. without testing. Each of those questionable assumptions makes it less likely that the missiles would work, but missile-defense boosters say that risk can't be ignored.
Vice President Dick Cheney heralded the program's 25th anniversary - and the continuing need for it - at a gathering hosted by the Heritage Foundation In Georgetown's Four Seasons hotel on March 11. "In 1972, nine countries had ballistic missiles," he said. "Today, it is at least 27, and that includes hostile regimes that oppress their own people, seek to intimidate and dominate their neighbors, and actively support terrorist groups."
But Joseph Cirincione, a missile-defense expert recently named president of the pro-disarmament Ploughshares Fund, told Congress a week earlier that the missile threat faced by the U.S. actually has declined in recent decades. Two-thirds of the nations cited by Cheney "have only short-range ballistic missiles with ranges under 1,000 kilometers - basically Scuds. This is often ignored when officials or experts cite the 30 countries with ballistic missile capability." The long-range missiles threatening the U.S. have shrunk by 71% over the past 20 years, he said, and are based in Russia and China. Five nations have developed medium-range missiles over the same period - China, India, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan.
Stephen Hildreth, an expert in missile defense for the Congressional Research Service, addressing the same hearing of the House government reform committee's national-security panel, emphasized the epic technological challenge involved in building a nuclear-tipped, ocean-spanning missile. In the past half-century, only five nations - the U.S., Britain, China, France and Russia - have managed to successfully develop, and then integrate, the requisite propulsion, guidance, re-entry and warhead systems. "The long history of ICBMs demonstrates that such success took considerable resources in time, funding, knowledge, infrastructure, organization and national commitment," Hildreth said. "It's this aspect of it that, I think, is lacking in so many of the discussions about ICBM threats to the country today."
Somewhere above, Ronald Reagan may be nodding, and brightening the heavens with his genial smile. "Free people must voluntarily, through open debate and democratic means, meet the challenge that totalitarians pose by compulsion," he said in that speech 25 years ago. He was speaking of the Soviets. But he just as easily could be speaking today of the "Star Wars" boosters who have made building the missile-defense system into a memorial for President Reagan, regardless of the changes in the real threats facing the nation since he spoke those words.
Wow, clueless liberals who were wrong for 25 years want us to wait until someone does have us targeted with missiles and then start work on a system.
They can then hold congressional hearings on the radioactive slag about how Republicans weren’t ready to defend us.
Read the tag line. It never changes.
This is how I would do it
And much more difficult to detect...
None the less, you cannot defend yourself against
a threat for which you have not prepared.
I believe the missile defense is reasonable
and if obtainable, worthwhile
That reminds me... I need to get the original versions of the Star Wars Episodes IV, V and VI. I don't want my future children to think that Star Wars has always stunk.
Stopped reading right there.
Anti-missile systems existed long before Reagan, and the technology that is being developed has been applied to so many arenas it is not even funny. I’m sure the author would have been more happy with another 120 billion sunk into ‘AIDS’ research, and not even thought a second about how that money could have been used for port defense.
While I agree that the article as a whole is a steaming double coiler...
...I can't totally agree with your assessment of the last paragraph. The funds expended by and for our military-industrial complex has gotten way out of control.
Eisenhower warned us about this but nothing has been done to effectively curtail it.
The USSR died the day Reagan announced the Strategic Defence Initiative. Even Gorbachev says so.
It was the most spectacularly successful military strategy ever given that an enemy who had the capability to kill 1 billion people with the push of a button, just gave up without a shot being fired.
Today ... we can shoot down a lot of missiles before they get to the US. Sounds like a great plan unless you also think Jimmy Carter was the best President ever (like Time does.)
Liberals never met a defense program that they didn’t want to cut. And never met a social program they didn’t want to expand.
TIME magazine gets to use its own numbers to disparage missile defense but it says nothing about the tens of billions in pork each year which far, far, far exceed what we’ve spent on ‘Star Wars’. And the trivial fact that the amounts they claim went to missile defense actually went to a variety of other technology development programs which may or may not be related to the actual missile defense program. Suddenly, the liberals are against technology and R&D spending!!! (Probably since it doesn’t pour billions into socialist universities to spend on social engineering experiments).
The long-range missiles threatening the U.S. have shrunk by 71% over the past 20 years, he said, and are based in Russia
****************
... which will be majority Muslim by 2015.
Just the person to rely on fora military assessment. And the last paragraph is outrageous, implying missile defense is being built just for Ronald Reagan and all the threats are gone.
Do the authors mention China?
Uh, two of those are potential adversaries with the capability to utterly destroy us with nuclear missiles. In a crisis, it can happen within minutes.
I’ll know for next time!
Which is about what we pay in one month to subsidize welfare parasites.
It is a foul allegation that is beneath contempt.
When the other countries verifiably do not have any missiles which can reach us, then I’ll say we don’t need star wars. I don’t give a damn what the concensus is of the most likely scenario. I want all the major scenarios covered .
So the idea has been around for a long time.
“Is this what Time has sunk to? Comparing a successful US foreign policy action to one of the worst movies of all time?”
Its no less a threat than Clancy’s plot of using airliners as flying bombs or using green lasers to blind pilots.
Too true. I see your point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.