Cruise Missile Threat Grows, Rumsfeld Says

Washington Post ^ | 08/18/2002 | Bradley Graham

[Pokey78]

Bush Urged to Boost Defense Against Low-Flying Weapon

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has sent the White House a classified memo warning of the spread of cruise missiles among hostile nations and urging an intensified government-wide effort to defend against them.

The memo, delivered last month, reflects heightened concern by Rumsfeld and senior aides about the ready availability around the world of cruise missile technology and the continued vulnerability of U.S. troops and population centers to attack by the low-flying, hard-to-detect weapons, according to officials familiar with the memo.

[Vidalia]

Grows...hmmm, grows...hey, like a mushroom cloud???

[cajungirl]

So the Post now publishes secret memos from Rummy to WH,,where did they get it???

[Texas_Jarhead]

I was wonderin that very thing myself.

[LiteKeeper]

Help me out someone - a "classifed memo" - what is the Post doing publishing it? And where did they get it?

[Timesink]

So the Post now publishes secret memos from Rummy to WH,,where did they get it???

My guess is Rummy himself, or one of his underlings on his orders. They're trying to shut up the naysayers.

[Vidalia]

The adrenalin from this lastest, if it is real, will surely help heal that wrist much quicker

[American in Israel]

TERRORIST ACCESS FEARED

What worries U.S. authorities is the prospect of such states as Iraq, Iran or North Korea or such terrorist groups as al Qaeda taking existing aircraft or anti-ship missiles and converting them into unmanned drones that could function as crude but still very deadly cruise missiles.

Funny that the Administration feels that this is a danger now. When Israel complained about the very same thing during the harpoon missile sale to Egypt, we said there was no danger, that ship missiles could not be converted.

The U.S. government’s most recent unclassified assessment of foreign missile developments, issued in December, said “many countries” see cruise missiles as a “better alternative” than ballistic missiles for attacking the United States, in large part because such weapons can be launched nearer to U.S. territory from commercial ships. This would not only shorten the delivery time of the missiles but also help obscure their origins.

This is the exact scenario that was discussed as prophecy on the prophecy club five years ago. Nice that the "Department of Defense" is only five years behind open public discussion. They do not get out much do they? The "other countries" that they in this part of the leak refused to name, are Russia and China.

To really put the sting on these "day late and a dollar short" overpriced bean counters at the helm, Debka made this same report at the same time! When even Debka has got it together better than our DOD, or the DOD is reading Debka for intelligence reports, we are hurting. If you felt safe on the shores of the United States, I might remember that these same bozos have shipped our National Guard over seas for UN games.

When we cannot even invade a country as powerful as Afghanistan without using the National Guard, think our enemies don't notice?

The United States has never been in as much danger as it is now. Clintoon sunk more ships than Hitler did in WWII. We have far less troops at home, and our two primary enemies not only have their troops concentrated, they have signed a pact against us.

Our Department of Defense, like the state department is a case of "the lights are on but nobody is home".

[aculeus]

Here's the BBC version

Sunday, 18 August, 2002, 09:53 GMT 10:53 UK

Cruise missiles 'threaten US'

The spread of cruise missile technology among nations hostile to the United States is reportedly causing deep concern within the Bush administration.

According to the Washington Post newspaper, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has sent a classified memo to the White House on the issue.

Mr Rumsfeld is reported to have called for an intensified effort to defend the country against attacks by such low-flying, hard-to-detect weapons.

The memo could represent an attempt to broaden the administration's anti-missile effort beyond the development of defences against ballistic missiles, the Post said.

Ballistic missiles tend to be bigger, more costly and longer range than cruise missiles, which are self-propelled, lower-flying and easier to transport.

Cruise missiles in many cases are capable of taking off from ships close to shore and manoeuvring below radar scanners or behind terrain, presenting a potential platform for delivering nuclear, biological or chemical warheads.

'Accumulated evidence'

The Pentagon is said to be particularly concerned about the possibility that groups or countries such as Iraq and Iran could use cruise missile technology to attack US installations or the American homeland.

The Post quoted an unnamed defence official as saying that an accumulation of evidence that adversarial countries were ever more interested in the weapons had sparked the memo, rather than a specific piece of new intelligence.

At least 81 countries are reported to have cruise missiles of some kind, totalling more than 70,000 weapons.

[cynicom]

For the tasks at hand, we need an expanded military, which brings about a military draft. A draft would be political suicide for any politician, regardless if it is what is needed, or best for this country. Too many people are willing to let someone else do it, "not me, I might get hurt"syndrome.

[Dog]

See this one???

[CJinVA]

http://www.darpa.mil/spo/Programs/lowcostcruisemissiledefense.htm Low Cost Cruise Missile Defense Program

BMDO was the champion of CMD back in 1996. The CMD task was dropped after one of the budget cuts in 1997. (the Clinton years.). I don’t know the status of this DARPA program.

[CJinVA]

See post 12.

[Diverdogz]

How are a whole bunch of half-hearted conscripts gonna stop a cruise missle? More people won't stop that problem.

But if you want more soldiers, the way to go is attract better soldiers with better benefits, pay, living conditions and such. I'd much rather a lesser number of motivated soldiers who choose to be in the military than a bunch of involutary people who are forced to serve.

[cynicom]

Diver....

Sometimes one has to look beyond his or her own selfish interest. This has been true since the Revolutionary War, where only 30 per cent of the people did the fighting and dying. If not for that few, one has to wonder what things would now be like. The other 70 per cent is always populated with the physical cowards, the elitist and other assorted malingerers.

It takes a great deal of arrogance for one to believe, that they are are too good to die or bleed, let someone else do it, they are far above such affairs.

[Diverdogz]

You are right- I think a majority of Americans would serve, a smaller number would serve with enthusiasm. I'd be willing to do so (but at 38, its unlikely they'd offer me such an opportunity).

I notice in most organizations - be they cooperations, clubs, PTA, whatever - the few do the majority of the work. 30/70 is about right.

[cynicom]

Diver....

I had an uncle that at age 40 was the oldest private in Pattons third army. He was drafted two weeks short of his 39 birthday. Married but no children. So one never knows.

[Diverdogz]

I found found the following discussion on an "about.com" web page for military enlistment standards. At this point I'd be too old to join....but in a draft situation, all bets are off:

---

Age. One would think that age would be a simple category. One is either old enough, or too old, right? Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work that way. By federal law (10 U.S.C., 510), the minimum age for enlistment in the United States Military is 17 (with parental consent) and the maximum age is 35. This is to ensure than anyone who enlists on active duty can be eligible for retirement (20 years of service) at the mandatory age of 55 (60 in some cases). However, DOD policy allows the individual services to specify the maximum age of enlistment based upon their own unique requirements. The individual services have set the following maximum ages for non-prior service enlistment:

Army - 34
Air Force - 27
Navy - 34
Marines - 28
Coast Guard - 27

However, prior service enlistees can receive an "age waiver." In most cases, the amount of age that can be waived depends upon the amount of time the individual previously spent in the military. For example, let's say that an individual has four years of credible military service in the Marine Corps and wants to join the Air Force. The Air Force could waive the individual's maximum enlistment age to age 31 (Maximum age of 27 for the Air Force, plus four years credible service in the Marines). For the Marine Corps, the maximum age of enlistment for prior service is 32, after computing the prior-service age adjustment.