Fleet scrambles to meet BMD ship demand

[unhappycamper]

The demand for BMD ships is expected to increase, driven in part by rising concerns about Iran’s intentions and the U.S. decision in September to cancel an anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic and rely instead on Aegis. The Aegis-class destroyer Hopper is shown here launching a standard missile that successfully intercepted a sub-scale short range ballistic missile in July.


Fleet scrambles to meet BMD ship demand
By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Jan 4, 2010 6:34:11 EST

No sooner did the Aegis ballistic missile defense system become operational in 2008 than combatant commanders started asking for BMD-equipped ships to begin patrolling their areas.

U.S. Central Command needed a “shooter” in the northern Persian Gulf. European Command wanted one in the eastern Mediterranean. Pacific Command already had Aegis ships with limited BMD capabilities on guard around Japan for a potential launch from North Korea.

The demand for BMD ships is expected to increase, driven in part by rising concerns about Iran’s intentions and the U.S. decision in September to cancel an anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic and rely instead on Aegis.

But the Navy has a relatively small number of such ships, and those destroyers and cruisers are designed to carry out a wide range of war-fighting tasks. As a result, while Navy commanders are pleased with the expanding capabilities of their Aegis ships, they’re also somewhat guarded about trumpeting the advances.

“We can’t constrain assets to one mission,” a senior officer said last month. “They need to do a variety of other missions.”


Rest of article at: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/01/navy_aegis_bmd_010410w/

[Peace Patriot]

1. I wonder why there are so many people who want to shoot missiles at us. Or do they?

I've often questioned whether Iran does--and Iran is being used as the major justification for these missile-shooting ships ("driven in part by concerns about Iran's intentions").

I just don't see it. I'm not crazy about Iran's government, but I have to say that it beats the hell out of that bloody-minded terrorist that the U.S. installed over the Iranian people--the 'Shah' of Iran (--25 years of torture and oppression, approved by the U.S. after the CIA toppled Iran's democracy). Iran's government--U.S. war profiteer propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding--strikes me as one of the better governments in the Middle East. It is relatively more democratic and more just (as to wealth distribution) than the other governments. It has exhibited no territorial ambitions. Despite the current protests, Iran seems the most stable (no threat from Al Q or Islamic extremists, that I know of). It is Persian, not Arab. (In fact, a lot of Iranians resent the Arabization of their language and culture.) Iranians are in fact the most potentially progressive people in the Middle East (outside of the Israelis). And their leadership is not insane--as I think may be the case with North Korea's leader. Iran's is a collective leadership, as in most of the world and in all sane countries. There is far less chance of a Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld gaining power in Iran than in most other countries. WE are more unstable than Iran, in this respect. (I think those madmen were going to push Junior's finger on the nuclear button against Iran and got curtailed by the U.S. military, and maybe also by Bush Sr.--and, if so, that is what I mean by "collective leadership"--some manner of effective "checks and balances" on lethal power, even if it is mostly secretive and behind-the-scenes.)

From what I can see, there is virtually NO CHANCE that Iran would EVER send a missile--nuclear of otherwise--at ANY country, let alone the U.S., or U.S. military assets, or U.S. allies (such as Israel)--unless they were attacked, and, even then, I think they would be rather careful (to verify who did it, to respond in a measured way, to try to prevent escalation). They are NOT insane. They are not particularly fanatical (--which can lead to insane acts, or insane people gaining power). Their religion is quite mild compared to the Taliban or the Saudis. I think they are inherently mild, cultured, educated people--as general characteristics. And I think the only reason that they got pushed toward an overarching, protective theocracy (in a somewhat democratic context) is that the mullahs supported their rebellion against the 'Shah' (and, by implication, against U.S./western dictation). And if the U.S. would stop demonizing them unfairly, and stop targeting them, they would probably throw off that protective theocracy and realize their progressive, democratic potential, and become a great progressive force in the Middle East.

Finally, I am convinced that they have been pursuing a nuclear weapons capability for defensive purposes only. Again, the U.S. is far more likely to use nuclear weapons one day, than Iran is. Iran would NEVER do it, unless they were attacked. They are not stupid. They are not insane. But they are afraid. In Iran's modern history, they have been attacked--by Saddam Hussein--and suffered a long, bloody war trying to prevent invasion and domination by Iraq (--with guess who providing Saddam with chemical weapons to use against them?). But they have never attacked anyone. They have no such ambitions. And now they are looking over their border at the horror in Iraq, and are doubly concerned that they will BE attacked, and, although they are far better defended than Iraq was in 2003 (crippled by 12 years of sanctions; with no air force), they could conceivably be overwhelmed, by U.S. bombs and/or nukes (and/or by a reconstituted Iraq army coordinated with U.S. forces?), by Israeli nukes, or by Pakistan's nukes. They are surrounded with threats. They want a deterrent--not to shoot missiles at anybody, but to keep from being shot at--invaded, conquered, occupied, and their oil stolen by U.S./western oil giants, or their culture destroyed by Arab fanatics.

So, what to make of "driven in part by concerns about Iran's intentions"? Is this really true, or is it just more bullshit from our global corporate predators and war profiteers?

North Korea and Pakistan are threats to the U.S. and to U.S. allies and to others (India, China), in part created by the worldwide contest for contracts in nuclear power generation (including for weapons), nuclear cleanup and nuclear control, safety and technological development, with U.S. corps being among the big drivers of that competition. Our "military-industrial complex" has NEVER sought counter-proliferation. They want control. They want the profits. They couldn't care less that the world is becoming an armed camp--in fact, that suits them fine, as long as they get the biggest cut. And the Pentagon is right in there, amongst them, demanding ships and planes and weapons, as fast as the war profiteers can produce them, to "counter" the threats that U.S. war profiteers in turn create. Talk about insane. That is the trap we are in. If you look at only one aspect of this trap, yes, we need more "BMD ships." If you look at the whole picture, BMD ships are just one more heap of lethal metal on the gigantic, mountainous, gas-driven arsenal under which the earth is sinking.