$92.5 Billion and counting down the "Missile Defense" Rathole

[swag]

An informative summary by the Center for Defense Information's Victoria Samson.

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3110&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=6&from_page=index.cfm

When do we say when?

"The effectiveness is in the 90 percent range" – Pete Aldridge, undersecretary of defense for acquisition technology and logistics, on March 18, 2003.


There is a "better-than-zero chance of successfully intercepting, I believe, an inbound warhead" - Lt. Gen. Trey Obering, head of the Missile Defense Agency, on July 21, 2005.

The official stance on missile defense has been changed. In the time between the first and second statements, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) held two intercept flight tests of the missile defense program that is intended to defend the United States against a very limited ICBM attack. In both of the tests, in December 2004 and February 2005, the rocket failed to leave the ground. This gives missile defense a track record of five intercepts out of 10 heavily scripted attempts, with the last successful intercept being completed three years ago in July 2002. Looking at the system’s development history, it seems unlikely that anyone could claim that it was progressing according to plan.

But yet the Pentagon continues to deploy missile defense interceptors in Alaska and California, even when acknowledging that problems with the flight test program means that another intercept probably won’t be held until next year at the earliest; plus, it is requesting funds to buy more and to send them out to a third site that will probably be in Europe.

Why the unbridled enthusiasm when it comes to funding – missile defense overall is the single most expensive weapon system in this year’s budget request – and yet such cautious backpedaling when speaking on record?

It would imply that the Pentagon is willing to go as far as it can convince Congress to endorse its budget requests, but refuses to be accountable for its behavior. After the $92.5 billion that has been poured into missile defense since its inception under the Ronald Reagan administration, it seems implausible that more funding is what is needed to make this program work the way it is supposed to.

. . . more

[Orrex]

1. Has any part of this hare-brained system *not* failed?!? (nt)

[swag]

2. Failure is always an option with Team Bush Crony Capitalism at work

Consider one of the major recipients of our wasted tax money: Raytheon, huge Bush supporters, throwers of "Texas Style Barbecue" campaign parties for GWB.

In the 2000 election cycle, the major players in the Missile Defense rip-off, Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon, TRW, and Boeing, provided more than $11 Million in soft money in support of mostly Republicans, but also to the benefit of some "Blue Dog" Democrats like Joe Lieberman.

An example of this stealth graft is provided by World Policy Institute:

At the GOP convention, Lockheed Martin kicked in $60,000 for the "Lott Hop," a dance fundraiser honoring Trent Lott, including performances by Bobby Vee and the Four Tops. TRW, which is under investigation for possible fraud in the national missile defense program, sponsored a luncheon at the Philadelphia Union League Club in honor of Sen. John Warner and Virginia representative Tom Davis, the chief fundraiser for House Republicans.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/hartung01.html

[swag]

3. A kick before dying.

[Strelnikov_]

4. And Per Amory Lovins, For $180 B We Could Eliminate 50%

of our oil consumption.

Gotta love that "better-than-zero chance" statement. A true optimist.

[swag]

5. Amory Lovins - wow. It has been about 25 years since I last heard

the expression "soft energy paths."

[Strelnikov_]

6. It's Been 25 Years Since We Were In This Much Trouble

regarding our energy infrastructure.

There will be no North Sea/North Slope/Nigerian oil fields coming on line this time.

[swag]

7. If only we had bought a clue.

Instead, America elected Reagan.