General Urges Obama to Not Abandon Missile Defense
Will he listen to the generals?
The Air Force general who runs the Pentagon’s missile defense projects said Wednesday that American interests would be “severely hurt” if President-elect Obama decided to halt plans developed by the Bush administration to install missile interceptors in Eastern Europe.
Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency, told a group of reporters that he is awaiting word from Obama’s transition team on their interest in receiving briefings.
[...]
“What we have discovered is that a lot of the folks that have not been in this administration seem to be dated, in terms of the program,” he said. “They are kind of calibrated back in the 2000 time frame and we have come a hell of a long way since 2000. Our primary objective is going to be just, frankly, educating them on what we have accomplished, what we have been able to do and why we have confidence in what we are doing.”
Perhaps some of the readers of this blog *ahem* could benefit from such a briefing.
“General In Charge of A Defense Program Does Not Want Program Cut”
That’s a dog-bites-man story.
As for your statement that some of us readers would benefit from a briefing, I’d love to see a system that detects, tracks, and destroys several missiles despite countermeasures. I’d also like a magic pony.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 12, 2008 at 2134 hrs
The general is moving on next week. It’s not like he’s protecting his job.
Posted by Owen on November 12, 2008 at 2137 hrs
None of us want to convey the impression we wasted our time
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 12, 2008 at 2154 hrs
Yeah, and we couldn’t go to the moon, develop atomic weapons, find the Titanic, or cure Small Pox, right?
Seriously, what is wrong with developing a system to protect us from ICBM attacks? The threat continues to exist. Is it just because a Republican thought of it?
Posted by Owen on November 12, 2008 at 2200 hrs
What is wrong with it is we don’t have the money and it is not a priority now. It is a luxury item at a time when we need to cut luxuries.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 12, 2008 at 2319 hrs
Healthy Wisconsin is a luxury item, national defense is a priority…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 13, 2008 at 0032 hrs
Yeah, and we couldn’t go to the moon, develop atomic weapons, find the Titanic, or cure Small Pox, right?
Seriously, what is wrong with developing a system to protect us from ICBM attacks? The threat continues to exist. Is it just because a Republican thought of it?
No, it has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats. A missile defense shield has long been a favorite of both Republicans and Democrats, and it was a Republican who signed the treaty against missile defense. I just think it’s a waste of money. Relying on an expensive, complicated system that is extremely unlikely to work even if there are no malfunctions is not worth it. And think about it, an Apollo 1 or Challenger disaster when the system is under attack means the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 13, 2008 at 0650 hrs
‘...It is not a priority right now. It is a luxury item ...’
The increased security and protection of the citizens of this nation and our allies from the threat of nuclear attack is considered a ‘luxury’?? Frankly, I can’t think of higher priority for this nation, or any other, for that matter. And lefties wonder why we think they’re soft on matters of national security ... its because, obviously, they are. They’d rather use taxpayer money on a littany of social engineering experiments, and income redistribution schemes, than continue to advance a technology that could render nuclear missle attacks obsolete. And you say WE have our priorities mixed up??
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 13, 2008 at 0805 hrs
Yes. increased protection IS a luxury. We have protection and have had protection for decades in the form of a massive retalitory force. Like the rest of the federal government military spending is bloated and must be cut.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 13, 2008 at 0847 hrs
Forty-seven million without healthcare in this country, but think of the countless more who have faced almost daily intercontinental ballistic missle attacks. That’s the real epidemic. We’ll get to the sick children later.
And if a few defense contractors who make lots of campaign contributions get rich in the process of dealing with this daily missle threat, well I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 13, 2008 at 1031 hrs
And how many of those 47 million either choose not to have health insurance, or are too lazy to get off their @ss and get a job?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 13, 2008 at 1057 hrs
How many of those 47 million already qualify for a state assistance, Jason? That’s a cute number to regurgitate if you don’t actually understand what it means.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 13, 2008 at 1122 hrs
How many of the 47 million are illegal immigrants? How many of the 47 million are “uncovered” because they just switched jobs. How many of the 47 million aren’t already covered under other programs like Medicaid or BadgerCare? Not to mention that it is illegal to deny care to someone who is uninsured.
The 47 million is a boogy-man.
However, I see the real threat of Russia and Iran.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 13, 2008 at 1402 hrs
Seriously, what is wrong with developing a system to protect us from ICBM attacks? The threat continues to exist. Is it just because a Republican thought of it?
Leaving aside the fact that we unilaterally abandoned the ABM treaty early in the Bush presidency (speaking of abandonment), and that developing anti-ballistic missile technology also violates that treaty, as did SDI in the 80s (despite the Reagan administration protestations to the contrary), nothing. The threat does continue to exist, but I think you’re wildly overestimating it.
This gets into a whole “rational actor” argument about the use of nuclear weapons, and whether or not Iran (the rationale for Eastern European deployment) is a rational actor or not. At the end of the day, I think that, yes, as a nation-state, Iran is a rational actor. I know this answer won’t please the “all Arabs/Persians are insane Islamo-fascists” faction, but that’s my opinion. The worry is not from an ICBM, it’s from fringe elements smuggling a nuclear weapon into the country. And again, Iran is still at least a couple of years away from nuclear capability.
Bad ideas are bad ideas. I don’t particularly care who thinks of them, Republican or Democrat.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 13, 2008 at 1423 hrs
We have protection and have had protection for decades in the form of a massive retalitory force.
The “You can kill 50 million but we can kill 100 million” thing has worked in the past but I think I like the ” We can kill 100 million and you’re not going to kill squat” defense better.
Posted by silent E on November 13, 2008 at 1510 hrs
Steve-O,
Are you trying to set up your insanity defense for some future crime? We shouldn’t deploy a missile defense system because it might be unreliable and might not stop an attack? Guess how many missiles no defensive system stops. NONE!!! You illogical goof.Jason,
You are merely spewing the pablum you have spoon fed. The total number of Americans without health care is . . . .ZERO. People may not have insurance by choice or by circumstance but nobody in America is denied health care. (That’s why those of us who pay their bills pay $12 for an aspirin - for all those who don’t pay anything).Hey - I have an idea. Let’s be consistent. Let’s not do anything that we can’t do perfectly. No missile defense, no medical transplants, no new automobiles, no new vaccines, no new anything that we can’t do perfect.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 13, 2008 at 2135 hrs
Even before you can talk about how well the system works or even its cost relative to other priorities, you have to consider how closely the system and its purported capabilities align with actual/likely threats. Just saying they can make it work (which is what I gathered the point was from my cursory glance at the article) is several questions down the road. What I would want to know (and don’t) is whether that particular threat warrants investment relative to other threats.
Posted by hope on November 14, 2008 at 1345 hrs
Tad, you’re of course correct that a missile defense system that’s partially reliable might stop more missiles that one that doesn’t exist. But we don’t have to spend hundreds of billions and reorient our foreign policy around a defensive system that doesn’t exist, either.
Since we have never been attacked by nuclear missiles, and remain unlikely to be so attacked because of the threat of massive retaliation, why spend all that money and totally rework our foreign policy? We’re much more likely to be attacked by a dirty bomb or terrorist attack using non-nuclear means, and a shield is useless against such threats.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 14, 2008 at 1719 hrs
It’s also funny to see you deny the plain facts of the American health care system.
Here’s a question - if a woman without health insurance is diagnosed with breast cancer, where does she get treated?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 14, 2008 at 1731 hrs
I don’t know where she would get treated. Where does this hypothetical woman live?
But I don’t suspect that was your real question.
I’m guessing she would be treated by an oncologist at a hospital that receives significant MA funding. Or she may be treated by some other form of philanthropic medicine. She may qualify for one of many programs that are offered by pharmaceutical companies for those who struggle with the cost of insurance and medications.
There are also programs in almost every state like HIRSP in Wisconsin.
The woman would not have to die alone in the street if that is what you are suggesting. Would she face certain costs? Probably. Would I even though I have insurance? Probably.
Should her care be at taxpayer expense? Under the scenario that Steve-O is likely alluding to, it already is/will/would be.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 14, 2008 at 1814 hrs
Total Entries: 19648
Total Comments: 129784
Most Recent Entry: 02/09/2012 11:52 am
Most Recent Comment on: 02/09/2012 04:56 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 133
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/09/2012 07:05 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).