Missile Defense?

[Griff]

Apparently, GWB has decided to go ahead with missile defense. I've been trying to figure out this administration and its embrace of 1984 as a policy paper rather than a warning. My thinking is pulled in several directions. Is this an administration of fools, greedy bastards, or are they delusional?

I assume most of us agree that Star Wars hasn't had a success warranting implementation. (correct me if I'm wrong) If it had worked well then we could fight about its impact on geo-politics. If the administration thinks a system which hasn't worked in testing will work in real life, then we're dealing with fools. If they know the system won't intercept but they want to feed their pals in the military industrial complex, then we're dealing with greedy bastards. If they think that our non-Russian enemies have the power to strike, we're talking delusional.

[Hubris Boy]

This doesn't represent a major change in policy or anything... this has been a goal of his since the campaign. I thought it would just remain a goal, though. I'm surprised they're actually getting ready to deploy it. I don't remember reading anything that suggests that they're anywhere close to being ready for operational deployment.

And maybe they're not. The article says they're only going to set up a battery of 10 missiles in 2004, and maybe 10 more a couple years later. Maybe this is more of a proof-of-concept test than an actual deployment?

To answer the question in the last sentence of your first paragraph, I would suggest that they are a combination of fools and greedy bastards. And, unsavory as they are, they are still vastly preferrable to the collection of delusional fools that we would have had under a <involuntary shudder> Gore administration.

[Griff]

Originally posted by Hubris Boy
... And, unsavory as they are, they are still vastly preferrable to the collection of delusional fools that we would have had under a <involuntary shudder> Gore administration.

EEEK! Choose yer poison, I guess. I wonder which outfit would've grown government faster or which would've been more dangerous to the man on the street? Maybe it really was a no-win election cycle.

[Undertoad]

Wait, is this the original "star wars" concept, or just a simpler way of picking off ICBMs?

[headsplice]

Originally posted by Griff


EEEK! Choose yer poison, I guess.... Maybe it really was a no-win election cycle.

Not to stab a dead horse in the mouth, but, how is it that we're some blase about the fact that our leaders are unrepresentative of major portions of our population?

and I'll reiterate UT's question, with an addendum of my own:
Is this a Super-Patriot system (like the Isreali Arrow, but more-so)?

[Griff]

Not yet. The higher tech stuff is still in development. This is ground based. It seems like they want to keep this one campaign promise despite the system being completely ineffective. From Yahoo.

Bush's announcement came six days after the latest test of the system failed when an interceptor rocket did not separate from its booster rocket and destroy a Minuteman II intercontinental ballistic missile as planned.

[Griff]

Originally posted by headsplice

Not to stab a dead horse in the mouth, but, how is it that we're some blase about the fact that our leaders are unrepresentative of major portions of our population?

I have, unfortunately, gotten quite used to unrepresentative government.

[Griff]

from BBC


The initial deployment of 10 interceptors in 2004 is to be followed by another 10 a year later. They will include ground-based interceptors, sea-based interceptors, additional Patriot (PAC-3) units, and sensors based on land, at sea, and in space.

I guess this is a Patriot based project?