Washington Times Misfires on Missile Defense
Washington Times Misfires on Missile Defense
Today the Washington Times posted a UPI story with the following headline:
The article continues: “The U.S. missile defense system was tested this week with North Korea’s launch of seven missiles, and performed as it should, Pentagon sources said.â€
A reader might think the U.S. has an operational missile defense system capable of shooting down long-range missiles. Of course, it doesn’t. So what part of the missile system was “tested and passed”?
The U.S. Northern Command said in a statement that all seven missiles were detected and tracked “immediately” after launch Tuesday and Wednesday.
“While Ground-based Midcourse Defense System interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., were operational during the flight, top officials from the command were able to determine quickly that the launch posed no threat to the United States or its territories,” the statement said.
The purpose of a missile defense system isn’t just to track missiles, it’s to intercept and destroy them. The Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system has gone through testing to see if it can do so, but it has failed consistently.
In fact, the system “hasn’t successfully intercepted a missile since October of 2002. … And the last two times it tried to hit an oncoming missile, the interceptor didn’t even leave the ground.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
the “washington times” is not a news source
July 6th, 2006 at 1:50 pmthey are the propaganda arm of a cult
quoting them as the media is not factual
so anything they say is more questionable than the MSM
I would ask you create a new category. pretend media
Once again, the motto of Bush’s America: If you set your goals low enough, you can achieve them all.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:53 pmNo, no.
I saw a TV movie about the USA having a nuclear missile emergency, and the protagonist of the movie detoned an atomic bomb (in the USA TV movies anything can be done or undone with a quite big bomb, read earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, hurricanes, aliens…). The hero ran at enough speed to evade the effects of the nuclear bang, just after pushing the button in the carcass of the bomb… I’m sure that the TV movie used real science already working.
So, I’m sure that the defense system somehow consist in a nuclear bomb, who, when explode, creates a sort of sea water vortex who sucks down enemy missiles.
Evidently it’s what happened with the Korean missiles, absorbed by the Sea of Japan waters, before reaching the valuable (but negligible) allies of the USA, South Korea or Japan.
/Sarcasm off
July 6th, 2006 at 1:53 pmThese two statements contradict each other. The first line says the defense system has consistently failed, and the next line states that it has intercepted a missle in October, 2002, which is a success.
The story states that the system successfully identified and tracked the missles and determined that they were not threats, so the intercept missles were NOT fired, so where is the failure?
July 6th, 2006 at 1:56 pmMaybe they’re using HAARP?
July 6th, 2006 at 2:01 pmWeather has been weird the past couple of weeks.
Not surprising, considering that this is the country that felt it was appropriate to pass a resolution declaring that we would be victorious in Iraq.
Our leadership has become so insulated from reality that they equate their pronouncements with fact.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:02 pmJason,
The post doesn’t say that GMD failed to track the missiles, just that it’s not capable of performing what it’s meant to do – shoot down missiles. The point of the post was to show that the Wash Times completely overstated the case.
And a successful test four years ago, followed by two instances where the interceptors never even got off the ground, doesn’t exactly give one confidence in the system’s effectiveness.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:03 pmI have never seen a group of people so happy everytime the USA fails at something. While Missle defense was a huge waste of money, I still really hope it will work in the end. While I was against spending the cash on it, now that we have it, I support it. I.like many Americans, want to hit an incoming Nuke from North Korea but you people seem happy that it could fail us.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:03 pmWow, that is the most misleading headline I’ve seen in a long time, even for the Wash Times….
July 6th, 2006 at 2:04 pmJason. Dont worry, buddy. Your government loves you very much just a Jesus does. If you push enough, maybe we can build a great shield to prevent any attack, even verbal. That good be amazing.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:04 pmWashington Times has always been a lying GOP rag newspaper, so no surprise they would claim the nonfunctional missile defense system works > lol.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:07 pmBen, Ben,Ben…..
Do you read? Obviously not, since you obviously did not read the article.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:14 pmI see nothing stating that anyone is happy that this failed. If you do, please point it out.
I am not happy with Bush being a failed and stupidly moronic president either.
Ben–
“Now that we have it”? What do we have? A continuing scam/boondoggle in which money is channelled to defense industry companies? Yes, that part works fine. Are you under the impression that the rest works as advertised? That if (God forbid) North Korea shoots a no-kidding nuke at us, it will be successfully neutralized? And if they shoot ten or twenty, they, too, will be stopped? Snap out of it. This was a fraud in Reagan’s day and remains one–the only difference from then and now being, back then, the successful deployment of such a shield would have been destabilizing. It would have been threatening to the (insane, “evil”, as we were told) Soviets, causing them to think we would use it to assure impunity if (ie, when) WE nuked THEM first. It’s just as well that they never got it to work, and that saner people than Edward Teller had more sway in D.C.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:16 pmHow many lifetimes will it take you people (on the idiot right) to learn and acknowledge that corporations lie for profit, that their governmental “representatives” (and future employees) lie on their behalf, and that at the highest, non-professional level in the Defense Department, it’s mainly about money? You “conservatives” who think you’re so “realistic.” YOU’RE the romantics; you believe the comic book romance about good vs. evil and turn a blind eye to greed, deception, and hypocrisy.
But, of course, don’t get me started…
I know this is off topic but none of the progressive webites are posting that Lamont will debate Lieberman tonight at 7pm on hardball. You would think that it would be worth sharing.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:17 pmReply to #14:
Thanks for the heads-up…I’ll be sure to watch tonight, although with Nora O’Donnell hosting, Hardball has become increasingly difficult to watch.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:21 pmPost 14 I just sent a fax article, I wrote, on Joe ‘Benedict Arnold” Lieberman to several members of the House and Senate! I hope Lamont creams Lieberman in that debate tonight!
July 6th, 2006 at 2:21 pmI have never seen a group of people so happy everytime the USA fails at something. While Missle defense was a huge waste of money, I still really hope it will work in the end. While I was against spending the cash on it, now that we have it, I support it. I.like many Americans, want to hit an incoming Nuke from North Korea but you people seem happy that it could fail us.
Comment by Ben — July 6, 2006 @ 2:03 pm
No one wants the system to fail, it’d just be nice to have honest answers about such a system – and if, at this point, it doesn’t work, I’d like to know that. Surely if you purchase a smoke detector for your home, you want to KNOW it works – not that in some limited tests it may detect smoke.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:24 pmWe don’t have a consistently working ground-based ballistic missile interceptor. We do have a semi-functional one.
Now, ballistic missile interception is infinitely harder than most people presume. I agree that the Times article title is a misfire. However, it is wrong to presume the US should have a fully functional system. We’d like to get there, but without the monetary support mechanism, we won’t get there.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:25 pmHEY BEN!! Give me 92 Billion dollars and I WILL PROTECT YOU AND THE WHOLE COUNTRY!! ALL BY MYSELF!!
However, don’t ask me to actually tell you what my solution is, and don’t ask me to test it. TRUST ME….I’ll protect you–for $92 Billion dollars. It’s surefire…trust me.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:28 pmLamont will debate Lieberman tonight at 7pm on hardball.
Comment by David
Thanks, David. I’ll have to sit through Hardball just this once.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:30 pmMrWonderful,
All I was saying is that since we have gone this far with Missle Defense, why not finish it. If they do finish it and it finally works, it would be a very important peice of our defense. To me, it seems that people like you are hoping they never get it to work. I ,for one, will never cheer against America trying to defend itself.
As far as profit taking and “evil” corporations:
We can all agree that some Corporations will lie for profit and that the government doesn’t spend our money wisely. Government has yet to have a program that isn’t a huge wasteful bueracracy. Why are you people so shocked everytime the government wastes money on defense? They waste money on failed social programs and pork all day. At least when it comes to defense programs, they are back to the scope of what our government was really put in place for.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:31 pmJuan C,
Big talk from a country that requires the Monroe Doctrine to protect its sovreignty – don’t worry, we will still protect you, know matter how ungrateful you behave.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:34 pmI have never seen a group of people so happy everytime the USA fails at something. While Missle defense was a huge waste of money, I still really hope it will work in the end.
While I for one am thrilled. The sooner you fellows wake up out of the delusion that a military solution will protect you all for ever amen, the better.
You need to get round a table with the rest of the humans on the planet and hammer out agreed global law to outlaw these weapons. It is preposterous, and childish to insist you can have weapons but no one else can. Maybe this will snap you out of the dream world.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:34 pmHey Right,
How’s it going. Did you have a good fourth?
Don’t you agree that if we wouldn’t have wasted so much money attacking Iraq that we may have (maybe) had a working missile defense system? Isn’t that what we should be working towards, protecting the US?
A “Star Wars” laser system is asking too much, but shooting down a missile shouldn’t be that hard.
I have heard (just tales mind you) that one of the reasons we can’t seem to get this thing working is that each missile requires a rather large diamond for tracking, which of course gets destroyed (lost) with each test. I don’t know if that’s true, just something I heard.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:35 pmDetails, details.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:35 pmwe will still protect you, know matter how ungrateful you behave.
Yeah like you are protecting those iraqis …. could we be protected by someone else please? Ummmm …. anyone else really.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:37 pm#26, Brian,
Actually, we are protecting the Kuwaitis and Saudis, not to mention the West in general, by developing democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan. When the democracies are established, they will flourish as Japan did.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:50 pmNo, what you said was:
So, you want to discuss something, fine. You want to accuse us of enjoying the fact that huge sums of money have been spent on something that doesn’t work, well then, you will just be a troll.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:55 pmI had no idea you were psychic. Sweet. What am I thinking right now?
July 6th, 2006 at 2:57 pmLamont will debate Lieberman tonight at 7pm on hardball.
Comment by David — July 6, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
just heard sam on franken – AirAmericaRadio - say that lamont will be on the show tomorrow and they will probably be playing clips from the debate… should be good…
July 6th, 2006 at 3:01 pmfranken’s show is 12-3 eastern time…
Isn’t the Washington Times the paper of Tony Blankley, and the Rev. Moon?
July 6th, 2006 at 3:06 pmTalk about moonbats!
—Oh, and Ben, the point is that our missle defense does NOT work! It is false security foisted on readers by the Times.
—Thanks for the heads up on Lamont/Lieberman on Hardball. I will take an antacid before watching Shill O’Donnell, and I won’t have any supper, so I won’t throw up.
Lieberman’s kisser and O’Donnell’s shilling is going to require viewer preparation.
Brian Quoted:
“You need to get round a table with the rest of the humans on the planet and hammer out agreed global law to outlaw these weapons.”
While in the perfect world this would be ideal, we live in the real world and it ain’t perfect. This is just like saying we need to outlaw all fireamrs in the USA so we are all protected. Sadly, a law like that would merely mean that only criminals would have firearms and we the people would now have no way to defend ourselves. I think the same holds true in this case. Even if every single country in the world agreed to get rid of there nukes, we all know that nukes would still exist. The problem would be that we would now not have any way to defend ourselves from countries that actually lied and kept theres.
In principle, I 100% agree that we should all disarm. I just don’t see it truly happening as some countries would lie and keep some of there nukes. Human nature I guess.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:12 pmIn principle, I 100% agree that we should all disarm. I just don’t see it truly happening as some countries would lie and keep some of there nukes. Human nature I guess.
Comment by Ben — July 6, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
I agree and it unfortunate that so many resources go to devices designed to kill. Unfortunately, we’re still barbaric – only finding new and more efficient methods to kill each other. If these same resources were put into positive things, we – as a society – would be much better off. But, you’re right, it is probably human nature.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:42 pm#13 – “….You “conservatives†who think you’re so “realistic.†YOU’RE the romantics….you believe the comic book romance about good vs. evil and turn a blind eye to greed, deception, and hypocrisy.” Comment by MrWonderfullyPessimistic
I’ll give you the “corporations lie for profit, that their governmental “representatives†(and future employees) lie on their behalf, and that at the highest, non-professional level in the Defense Department, it’s mainly about money?” argument when you admit that teacher’s unions have victimized our inner city school children, that Auto Unions and Steel Unions helped wave goodbye to a large segment of American munufacturing and that the typical SIEU member moves around his/her job with as much enthusiasm as a corpse in a funeral parlour…(See how a different perspective can put things in a new light???)
July 6th, 2006 at 3:43 pmReply to Comment #21
Comment by Ben — July 6, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
MrWonderful,
All I was saying is that since we have gone this far with Missle Defense, why not finish it. If they do finish it and it finally works, it would be a very important peice of our defense. To me, it seems that people like you are hoping they never get it to work. I ,for one, will never cheer against America trying to defend itself.
Ben, the problem is that we aren’t any closer to fielding an effect BMD after having spent $92 billion than we were before and the military is so embarrassed by its persistent failure that they refuse to acknowledge that it doesn’t work. How can we fix it if the military won’t admit that it’s a total boondoggle?
As far as profit taking and “evil†corporations:
We can all agree that some Corporations will lie for profit and that the government doesn’t spend our money wisely. Government has yet to have a program that isn’t a huge wasteful bueracracy. Why are you people so shocked everytime the government wastes money on defense? They waste money on failed social programs and pork all day. At least when it comes to defense programs, they are back to the scope of what our government was really put in place for.
Oh, so you don’t mind wasting money as long as it’s on programs with which you agree? Worse, you’re willing to accept the corruption in paying companies which have lied about their ability to deliver on the BMD program and in maintaining these programs in existence when they have shown tha t they can’t get fixed. I like your idea of morality – “Do what I say.”
Do you want to know why most social programs fail, Ben? They’re never funded at the levels required to make them work. They’re always working on a shoestring. That hasn’t been the case with this foolish BMD program Dubya and the possed foisted on the nation. They’ve poured tons of money into the program and liteally haven’t been able to get it off the ground (on at least the last test the interceptor didn’t even make it out of the silo). I would rather that we spendour money wisely, for whatever purpose it might be, and funding this dog fails that test.
Plus, do want to know another reason that this debacle fails the test. The AF is keeping it mostly to justify retirement slots for the AF generals managing the program with the contractors who won’t meet the program specs at the price they agreed to. The AF generals have a dog in this fight and, if you think we’re getting good value for the work that’s been done, I want to sell you a bridge in the New York area.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:46 pmSo, since we agree that it is human nature to kill each other and research WMD, why is it a bad thing to research a defense system against Nuke missles? I would think that a defense system like that would be a top priority to both the left and the right. It doesn’t work yet, but why not get it to work? Seems like many here want to simply stop the research on this project all together yet I haven’t heard a different plac to protect americans from an incoming ICBM. The idea of all the nations in the world getting together and agreeing to disarm is a fairy tale (a nice fairy tale, but nowhere near reality).
July 6th, 2006 at 3:47 pmWhile in the perfect world this would be ideal, we live in the real world and it ain’t perfect.
I am not suggesting a utopia where all live in harmony. I’m suggesting binding global law that outlaws these weapons, and eventually war.
If laws work in villages, towns, cities, counties, regions, nation states and supra-national regions like the EU, India and the US, why can’t they work globally? The answer to this question is of course, that they can. You just need to think bigger.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:51 pmThe idea of all the nations in the world getting together and agreeing to disarm is a fairy tale (a nice fairy tale, but nowhere near reality).
Thats probably what the english, welsh and scottish said, or the american states, or the German bundeslander or God help us the Europeans. Thats all turned on it’s head now, why not globally?
Roughly 60% of the planets citizens live under democratic regimes right now … why can’t we continue to push that envelope?
The real cloud cuckoo land is imagining that 5% of the planets population can wall themselves off from the other 95% for ever. Against this, my proposal is shining lucidity personified:-)
July 6th, 2006 at 3:56 pm#19 – Punchy,
July 6th, 2006 at 3:59 pmAnd where in Nigeria do we send the $92 billion check (Or would you prefer untraceable pennies?)?
PrahaPartizan,
So what your saying is that government programs fail because we don’t give them enough funding. At least you are admitting that the governments social programs are currently failures. Of course you want this missle program shut down because it has failed which is a fair point of view. The real question is, are you consistent? Should we shut down all the other failed government programs?
I’ll let you throw away the failed missle program if you let me throw away our failed Social Security Program. Drool! I could retire at least 4 years earlier if I didn’t get all that SS money taken out of my checks. I could properly invest it and actually have something to show for it come retirement time!! Furthermore, we could throw care to the wind about potential ICBM’s hitting the US and reduce the AF budget by 92 billion which could then be turned into a tax cut for us in middle america land. DROOL again!
I am glad we are seeing eye to eye on this. I am sorry I didn’t realize what you meant before. You are 100% correct. If a goverment program is a failure, SHUT IT DOWN ASAP!! Lets write to our congressmen together on this and beg them to get rid of all the failed programs, both social programs and military. Hell, I bet we could cut the Federal budget by 80%-90% really fast!
July 6th, 2006 at 4:02 pmIt works in towns and counties etc…..
Disarming even normal citizens doesn’t work. You need a permit to buy a handgun which is very difficult to get in many counties and impossible if you have ever had a felony. Sadly, the police find people every single day with illegal handguns. Sounds like the law isn’t working very good even at a local level. Now you want us to join hands with North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan and all agree to disarm? We all know they can’t be trusted. Funny enough, those countries would say the same thing about America. This all leads back to the fact that no one trusts anyone and no one will simply disarm. It will never happen.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:08 pmSadly, the police find people every single day with illegal handguns. Sounds like the law isn’t working very good even at a local level.
You are confusing crime with war. There will always be crime,and I might add terrorism. Somalia is a microcosom of the world as it currently is, a lawless feudal system where might is right.
Developed world states do not accept gangs of armed thugs killing citizens at will. Yet it occurs internationally, because there are almost no laws that address it.
Let me quote Alexander Hamilton.
Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation. This penalty, whatever it may be, can only be inflicted in two ways: by the agency of the courts and ministers of justice, or by military force; by the COERCION of the magistracy, or by the COERCION of arms. The first kind can evidently apply only to men; the last kind must of necessity, be employed against bodies politic, or communities, or States.
It is evident that there is no process of a court by which the observance of the laws can, in the last resort, be enforced. Sentences may be denounced against them for violations of their duty; but these sentences can only be carried into execution by the sword. In an association where the general authority is confined to the collective bodies of the communities, that compose it, every breach of the laws must involve a state of war; and military execution must become the only instrument of civil obedience. Such a state of things can certainly not deserve the name of government, nor would any prudent man choose to commit his happiness to it.
He was so right.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:31 pmThis all leads back to the fact that no one trusts anyone and no one will simply disarm. It will never happen.
Ben I have cited plenty of examples of the very thing you are shaking your head atm happening. Every functioning nation state is an aggregation of previously autonomous regions. This cannot be denied, it’s just basic history.
Surely the obvious conclusion is that this aggregation will continue, especially with technology allowing an Irishman living in Sweden to lecture an American on global governance:-)
We can either work with it, or against it. Either way it’s going to happen eventually, in one form or another, heck it’s already happening, and the majority of global governance instruments are undemocratic. Thats the real scandal. We should demand a UN of elected representatives as a start.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:43 pmOnce again, the bigger the lie, the more they believe.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:47 pmBrian,
We can agree to disagree on if it is possible to actually get rid of 100% of the world’s nukes. I still cannot envision how that would ever take place. Again, I agree it would be a very very good thing, just don’t see it happening.
I am not sure what this means though. You quote:
“Thats the real scandal. We should demand a UN of elected representatives as a start.”
What do you want UN elected reps to do? Sorry, just not sure what your trying to say.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:57 pm“Thats the real scandal. We should demand a UN of elected representatives as a start.â€
What do you want UN elected reps to do? Sorry, just not sure what your trying to say.
Currently the UN ambassadors are simply appointed by governments. They should be directly elected by the people they are representing. You guys had John Bolton foisted on you, even conservatives where not thrilled with him. He would never have been elected, that is certain.
What would they do? Much the same as they do now I’m afraid, we’d need to get rid of the security council next, and have all such decisions taken the main UN chamber using population weighted votes. Don’t get me started on Vetoes. Sheese.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:21 pmAgain, I agree it would be a very very good thing, just don’t see it happening.
The first step is to elect people that are not rabidly nationalist. Thats good action right there.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:42 pmBrian,
I guess we the people could vote for our UN official. In America, most don’t really care as much about the UN as many think so electing our own official would only be of much importance to us political junkies.
As far as getting rid of the security council and weighting the vote based on population:
If we ever wanted to consider this, I would say that we first need to split the UN “fees” equally among every single country instead of making the US bare over 25% ourselves. I would also want the rest of the world to pay of back for the UN building and the ground just to be fair. Lastly, I would want every single country to share equally the cost of any program they vote in. If the UN wants to give billions to fight aids in Africa, split that cost among every single nation equally. If the UN wants to put a “UN Force” in a unstable country, then every single country in the UN has to send an equal number of troops.
So, I am all for making the UN equal and taking away the USA Veto power. I just want the UN to truly be Equal though, not a bunch of countries getting together to discuss how to spend US money and where to put US troops.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:58 pmMoon, who has more to with our nation’s turn right and theocratic than ANYONE, has way too much invested in bragging to his cult about how he personally influenced the Reagan administration into pissing billions away on Star Wars. He wasn’t alone but he tipped the tipping point in the decision. He brags about that and he IS right.
Folks, the right wing in America is nothing more than Moon’s unwitting tools. If you are not afraid to look you will see that in no uncertain terms. It’s the biggest and most untold news story going. The FACTS and history show this.
Get this, the Washington Times, Moon’s propaganda paper funded in no small part by money swindled from widows in Japan and created by a Moon who wants KOREA to be his sovereign nation and the center of the world, has us spending billions draining our treasury while he funded North Korea with billions.
Think about this folks. THINK ABOUT IT.
Read section 17 here:
http://cellwhitman.blogspot.com/2004/10/independent-washington-times.html
—
Is there anything in this quote you don’t understand, any words?
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/moon3.html
Your democracy is going away, there is a reason for that.
July 6th, 2006 at 6:45 pma funny north korea story
July 7th, 2006 at 8:05 am[...] Washington Times Misfires on Missile Defense Think Progress, DC – Jul 6, 2006 The article continues: The US missile defense system was tested this week with North Korea s launch of seven missiles, and performed as it should [...]
July 9th, 2006 at 5:59 pmAnswer to #13. guys like you crack me up. I guess the test conducted in September 2006, where a test missile was fired from alaska, and shot down by an inteceptor missile from CA was just a farse. I believe it is one step closer to a success in the public eye. Government spending is always painful when the result of the expenditure is not immediate. I suspect that the National Missle Defense system may have some bugs in it, what major system doesn’t, but September 2006 proved that it works.
December 17th, 2006 at 3:09 am