‘Where are ‘Star Wars’ critics now?’ We’re still right here

I’m generally not sensitive about these kinds of things, and when a conservative blog criticizes something I’ve written, I usually just blow it off. But today The Politburo Diktat had an item suggesting that I, among others, was one of the “lefties” who was wrong about a missile-defense system. Let’s explore that for a moment.

The site linked to a Washington Examiner item that says the U.S. has a system in place that “is poised to shoot down anything launched from North Korea that threatens the American homeland or the critical interests of our regional allies like Japan and Australia.” This development, the piece argues, has led long-time skeptics to become “noticeably absent.” The Politburo Diktat asks, “Where are ‘Star Wars’ critics now?”

We haven’t gone anywhere. The Diktat argues that a “missile defense system is, at this juncture, eminently desirable,” in light of recent developments regarding North Korea, and I’d agree that a system may very well be “desirable” — but that doesn’t make it work.

* The Pentagon’s Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) 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. Things have gotten so bad that the Missile Defense Agency’s independent review team concluded last year that more tests may only undermine the GMD’s value as a deterrent.”

* A recent Pentagon Inspector General report found that security vulnerabilities are so serious “that the agency and its contractor, Boeing, may not be able to prevent misuse of the system.”

* “A little-noticed study by the Government Accountability Office issued in March found that program officials were so concerned with potential flaws in the first nine interceptors now in operation that they considered taking them out of their silos and returning them to their manufacturer for ‘disassembly and remanufacture.'”

And what happened during the North Koreans’ July 4th missile test? I’m glad you asked.

Our defense system was able to “track” the weapons, but as ThinkProgress noted, “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.”

Returning to The Politburo Diktat, the site boasted:

In the Eighties, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) or “Star Wars,” was the bete noir of that decade’s moonbats. In lieu of leftwing blogs, the arguments raged in the editorial pages and in occasional marches and protests. The main thrust of the moonbats was that we could never build a system that would be impervious to the thousands of missiles that the Soviet Union could launch.

Things look differently now, don’t they?

Well, not really. It’s been a couple of decades, but there’s still a nuclear threat, the right is still championing a system that can’t offer a reliable defense, the left is still wondering why we’re investing billions in a system that might never work, the GOP base is still chest-thumping for no particular reason, and there’s still a conservative Republican president of questionable competence who seems puzzled by serious national security threats.

Come to think of it, things don’t appear terribly different at all.

“In lieu of leftwing blogs, the arguments raged in the editorial pages and in occasional marches and protests.”

I found this sentence interesting. Do you think that the “leftwing blogs” has provided an outlet for liberals to some extent which has kept us from forcing our concerns into mainstream media?

  • Thanks for the article CB. I wouldn’t read such tripe myself, but all your points are excellent.

    “the Missile Defense Agency’s independent review team concluded last year that more tests may only undermine the GMD’s value as a deterrent.”

    And that’s what it’s meant to be. Along with a psycological crutch. North Korea’s missiles are psycological weapons. They are meant to scare us into giving them just enough support to maintain control over their starving populace. Our ‘missile defense’ is supposed to give us just enough backbone to say NO to Kim’s more outlandish demands. That’s all!

    I love your observation, Catherine. Then again, none of my letters to the editor ever seem to get to print. I’ve had a couple of replies from Senators, though πŸ˜‰

  • I guess we’re supposed to use happyspeak to fool the North Koreans into thinking the thing actually works.

    Can these guys really be so retarded that they actually believe what they print? Sure looks like it.

  • In the Eighties, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) or “Star Wars,” was the bete noir of that decade’s moonbats. In lieu of leftwing blogs, the arguments raged in the editorial pages and in occasional marches and protests. The main thrust of the moonbats was that we could never build a system that would be impervious to the thousands of missiles that the Soviet Union could launch.

    Things look differently now, don’t they?
    –Posted by some wingnut

    So we have a series of missles in outer space that are capable of shooting down warheads headed our way … ? Um … did I miss something? When the hell did that happen?

    On another note, what in the name of all that is holy does the term “moonbat” mean? Where did that come from and why, exactly, am I supposed to be insulted by it?

  • Rightwing morons say:
    “Things look differently now, don’t they?”

    Uh no. In fact it looks even worse. How can one tout the benefits of a missile defense system that has a failure, A FAILURE, rate of 90%, unless you’re deluded or just stupid.

    We’re talking about the difficulty of trying to shoot bullets out of the sky with bullets. Our technology is a long ways (if not forever) of even being close to doing such things.

    My only advise to these limpbrains is stop playing Missile Command!

  • “Come to think of it, things don’t appear terribly different at all.” CB

    Right, things definitely have the feel of the first months of the Bush administration, prior to 9/11.

  • On another note, what in the name of all that is holy does the term “moonbat” mean?

    We call them wingnuts, they call us moonbats. I don’t know why. As usual, ours makes sense and theirs doesn’t.

  • For my part, I think this North Korean Taepodong missle test offers a real teaching moment for Star Wars fans. Surely Kim Jong Il has better things to spend his country’s money on than a missle system that, instead of actually serving any national security purpose, misfires really expensive missles a short distance into the sea. That’s just a dumb way t spend your resources. The wingnuts could agree to that, right?

    Well, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for gander. . . .

  • There is no doubt in my mind that a MDS is possible. I did the guidence and navigation for Apollo. However, star wars as such needs to be proved in the laboratory. May have been? The possibility of hitting a missle with a missle is not a difficlut one but has it’s difficulties none the least of which it’s down to the computer program state of development making it too cheap to consider for a big government give away program. In fact didn’t they use one of them in the first gulf war? I have it down as the source of most of our casualties. A runaway one hit a barracks full of sleeping GIs and another picked off an F-16 returning from a sortie.

  • Actually, if you take out the batshit crazy part it could be an excellent investment. As soon as DPRK gets their missiles to work they will have buyers lined up to the other side of China. Most countries with the technology to make long-reaching missiles are smart enough not to sell them to unstable states that might fire them back at you, but if you’re batshit crazy like Kim Jong Il that isn’t a problem. Same deal with nukes. The reason DPRK is a major problem the way nobody else is other than maybe Pakistan and Russia’s rusting stockpiles is that they strongly want to become the Gap of strategic weaponry.

  • Well if irresponsible journalists and lef wing “Moonbat” bloggers would stop committing treason by telling the North Koreans our missle defense system was useless we wouldn’t even need a missle defense system. Follow the circular logic long enough and you get an upset tummy.

    A serious problem to be sure but I have the solution! All we have to do is make a fake documentary of successful construction, testing, and implementaion of a missle defense system and show it to the North Koreans and Iranians (by leaking it to the left wing media). They don’t know it is all made up. Hell sorting out the reality from the fiction has to be the “hardest work” for the enemies of freedom.

    I be we could produce a reall top-notch film for like $50 million. That is a serious savings over the cost of a non-functioning real system.

  • hmm, my blockquote formatting seems borked. Let’s try again:

    Surely Kim Jong Il has better things to spend his country’s money on than a missle system that, instead of actually serving any national security purpose, misfires really expensive missles a short distance into the sea. That’s just a dumb way t spend your resources.

    In reference to my comment above.

  • “In fact didn’t they use one of them in the first gulf war? I have it down as the source of most of our casualties. A runaway one hit a barracks full of sleeping GIs” – Bill

    I believe the Patriot actually hit a Scud and the resulting debris landed on an Air Force barracks and caused, as you note, the bulk of our casualties in the war. The Scud, by the way, if left on its own, would have missed everything.

    The Scubs were just terror weapons. The Patriots were courage weapons. You balance the one by having the other πŸ˜‰

  • #4 Moses,

    No, the interceptor missiles are not in space. They are located in Alaska and California. Everyone calls it Star Wars because the program is a descendent of Reagan’s Star Wars initiative, but the only space-based component is a satellite warning system.

    Well, not really. It’s been a couple of decades, but there’s still a nuclear threat, the right is still championing a system that can’t offer a reliable defense, the left is still wondering why we’re investing billions in a system that might never work, – CB

    I disagree. What “The Politburo Diktat” is saying is that in the 80s, we faced a completely insurmountable nuclear threat from the Soviets, but we decided to at least try, because who knows? Maybe someday computers might have clock speeds of over 10 MHz, and have hard drives of over 50 MB!! What we face now is a limited threat from NK and Iran, and we are getting close to having a rudimentary defense against these threats. In 10 years, we very well might not have to worry about these “rogue nations” launching their limited nuclear arsenals at us on ICBMs.

    We can’t sit back and let nutjobs like Kim Jong Il hold us hostage. Missile Defense is hard, and it is expensive. It is in it’s infancy. It’s possible it won’t ever work, but the USA is pretty damn technically sophisticated when we put our minds to it. If we had waited until now to start on Missile Defense, there would be no point, because the technology would be 20 years away from us. As it stands now, we have a pretty good start, and it will keep getting better. It’s a race against time…

  • Some of us are so stuck in reality that we forget what an unqualified success the SDI (Supremely Dumb Idea) has been for Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, TRW, Boeing…
    All they did for their billions was prove an impossible idea wasn’t possible. I’m in the wrong business again.

  • These so-called “interceptors” were unable to hit a target when it was broadcasting a radar homing beacon.

    (snark) Oh well, if the NKs are going to fire a missile at the west coast, could they please aim for south Orangutang County/North San Diego County? At least they’ll actually take out a lot of Republicans that way.
    Unfortunately, their missile guidance is so bad it would probably land somewhere north of us in the San Fernando Valley. (/snark)

  • Addison,

    You have a point here about the cold war but I for one do not feel like a hostage to Kim Jong Il. The man cannot even manage to feed his people without donated food from China and even South Korea. He can afford luxury for himself a sizeable military (but who knows how effective), and little else. The best approach to North Korea is through China. All it will cost is some tact, compromise, and some skilled diplomats.

    North Korea is not the only potential problem (remember the French have Nukes too). Maybe a missle defense system is a good idea but explain to me again why anyone would launch a missle at us? A rogue nation with a few nukes is staring at only 1/2 of the MAD (mutually assured destruction) equasion that was responsible for all the nukes we got during the Cold War. A rogue nation by definition has a short list of friends and launching an unprovoked attack on the US seemed to crystalize support for the US last time (you must be suffering from pre- 9/11 thinking). It will go away if you watch 3 hours of FOX news.

    Maybe there is a better way that does not cost billions. During the space race NASA developed the space pen which I believe you can still buy at The Sharper Image. It costs a lot of money to make ink flow in zero gravity. At some point an American reporter asked someone from the Russian space program how they solved the problem of writing in space. His answer: they used pencils.

  • Addison–
    While I don’t disagree that having some sort of deterrent is a good idea, there’s just one problem:

    It’s not a deterrent.

    A missle launched from, say, a ship at sea would bypass it. A missle launced at a low trajectory will bypass it. And there are other ways to get a nuke here (say, in one of the 96% of shipping containers that aren’t searched since the GOP-led Congress won’t bother to approve the funds neccessary to search them all).

    Combine that with the fact that the initial story had it all wrong (the system only tracked the missles and was nowhere capable of actually stopping them) and it’s the typical right-wing logic: Take something that contains 2% fact and try to make it appear as 100% truth.

    On another note, I still don’t understand where “moonbat” comes from. Wingnut is easy: someone on the right politically is called a “right winger.” Some of them are “nuts” (i.e. “crazy”). The result is a word that combines these two terms and results in “wingnut.”

    Those on the left are “left wingers.” Admittedly, some are “nuts” (i.e. “crazy”). The result is a word that combines … the word for a smaller celestial body that orbits a larger celestial body, and the word for a winged creature that eats insects or fruit?

    Seriously … WTF?

    Not only does the far right suck as governance, they suck at insults as well.

  • Unholy Moses:
    Part of the “moonbat” origin is fairly obvious: Moon=Luna, hence “lunatic”. Bat? I don’t know… Because it rests upside-down, which is bound to make it even more crazy? Because it eats fruit (“fruit” being another word for crazy. Or is it in Brit English?)? Because it squeaks at such high frequencies nobody can hear it? Any or all above? Who knows…

    And who cares? We got Batman on our side; whom do the wingnuts have? And please don’t tell me Superman — he was an illegal alien.

  • Edo–
    Gotta love Wikipedia …

    libra–
    I’m more of a Spiderman kinda guy myself. Superman is just too perfect, and Batman is like the spoiled rich kid with all the latest toys. Spiderman struggles with his role as a superhero, and performs his job out of the necessity of doing what is right, rather than just showing off his freakish abilities.

    And, no, I’m not really a comic geek (don’t own a single issue of any of them). πŸ™‚

  • In re Dan from comment #6. Building upon what Tom Cleaver said in comment #19, the interceptors have a 90% failure rate when the missiles they’re supposed to be intercepting are sailing through the air screaming “hit me! No me! ME!!!!!!!!!” I’m pretty sure they don’t even bother testing the damned thing against missiles which don’t have homing beacons because… wait for it… there’s no way they can hit those. I saw an interesting PSA in a comic book from the 80s about the original SDI system and why it wouldn’t work. In comic form. Still true today.

    Sigh.

  • Newsflash!!!
    The bad guys don’t have ICBMs. Try working on chemical detection or maybe public works security.

  • I had the misfortune of seeing Duncan Hunter on Larry King the other night on a panel to discuss the missiles. While the other panelists (mostly ex-Clinton types) proposed a variety of ideas, all subject to reasonable alternatives, Hunter answered every question made to him to the effect that this is another reason why we need a missile defense system. He reminded me of when I was taking finals in college and no matter what question was asked I would simply formulate the answer to reflect the question I had been prepared to answer. I had to assume Hunter has some heavy weight aerospace types in his district. Strategic theories aside (i.e. MAD) I think everyone can agree it would be grand if we had a missile defense system to defend against rogue nations such as NK. However, they always leave out the cost. How much is it worth? Should we continue developing a system that may or may not work no matter how much it costs? Secondly isn’t it worse to have a system that sorta, maybe will work than to have no system at all? Imagine how Bush or a future Bush-like doofus will react in a crisis if he thinks he has a shield that is, in fact, of uncertain reliability.

  • #20 – MNProgressive, true, NK is probably 5-10 years away from having a true capability to drop a nuke on us using an ICBM. I cannot imagine what Kim Jong Il thinks he would gain by launching a nuke at us. The thing that worries me is that if he has a dream one night that he has to nuke the US, or we’ll arrest all the elves that make his favorite brand of cookies, then none of his advisors are going to tell him not to. Or, to make the point more seriously, if he imagines some convoluted reason why it would be beneficial to nuke us (or perhaps, if he feels backed into a corner with nothing to lose), no one is going to try and stop him.

    #21 Moses – I agree, kind of. The interceptors you are talking about won’t stop a ship parked off our coast from lobbing a missile at us, or search a shipping container, but you’re kind of comparing apples and oranges. The interceptors in Alaska and California were designed specifically to stop ICBMs. Not searching shipping containers is a failure of Bush policy, not the missile defense system. There are other parts of the larger missile defense strategy designed to deal with other types of threats.

    As far as only tracking the long-range missile, I don’t think there is much significance to that. It wasn’t even close to threatening the US. We don’t know what would have happened if the long range missile had worked.

  • #27 – good point robertl…it’s conceivable that over the next 10 years we will move from almost no missile defense ability (now) to a 50% chance of defending a handful of missiles (say, 5 years), to a 90% chance of defending a handful of missiles (say 10 years). Each has the potential for misuse, and outright abuse. With another Bush-type in the White House in 10 years, perhaps having a reasonable missile defense system will only encourage us to get involved in conflicts where we don’t belong (What? We already do that? Oh right, Guam…)

    Frankly, I just don’t see a stable resolution to this issue. I think within 20 years, we will see another nuclear explosion on this planet. When it becomes possible for a small group of people (say, 5 or less) to detonate a nuclear weapon, then it will happen. It’s only a matter of time.

    One the plus side…nuclear winter would solve our global warming problem! πŸ™‚

  • #21 Moses – I agree, kind of. The interceptors you are talking about won’t stop a ship parked off our coast from lobbing a missile at us, or search a shipping container, but you’re kind of comparing apples and oranges. The interceptors in Alaska and California were designed specifically to stop ICBMs.

    Yeah … sorry about that. I have the tendency to wander when I’m posting from work and want to get a lot off my mind about an issue. My fault.

    More to the point: Last I checked, NK doesn’t have any ICBMs. Neither does Iran. Thus, the whole “Star Wars” “MDS” thing is a relic from the Cold War era that simply doesn’t protect us from the new threats we face (the shipping containers and other ramblings from my previous post).

    And, as a relic, it really doesn’t merit continued investment, does it? Shouldn’t that money be put to better use (i.e. fighting legit threats)?

  • When it becomes possible for a small group of people (say, 5 or less) to detonate a nuclear weapon …

    Um …

    While the whole suitcase nuke thing has been pretty much thrown out the window, there are plenty of smaller, lower-yield devices floating around. And, to be honest, that fact worries me a whole helluva lot more than a missle from NK that lasted about twice as long as the Bush twins conception, and was as successful as a presidential bike ride in Scotland.

  • Politburo Diktat—otherwise known as the lab animals used by medical students for keeping their lobotomy skills fresh—yes?

  • #30 – Moses,
    Well, an excellent question. I think after 9/11 we started thinking WAY outside the box in terms of what kind of threats we would face, but I wonder if the focus on ICBMs is a case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. And you make an excellent point about cold war relics…I remember being in middle school in the 1980s, and about the scariest thing was the idea of hearing the air raid sirens go off, and knowing that Russia was about to nuke us into the stone age (“Wolverines!!”). For some reason, nukes in shipping containers and nukes on ships were just never considered glamorous threats — but they are certainly more practical (from an enemy’s perspective), they are harder to trace, and btw, require less overhead, than an ICBM.

    The main counter I have to not pursuing missile defense is kind of the French Maginot Line (on the Franco-German border) argument someone mentioned here a couple days ago. Because it existed, the French thought they were safe from the Germans. However, the Germans just went around it and came in through the back door. Does that mean it didn’t work? Well, it prevented an attack on the front it where it was supposed to, and combined with a better strategic use of the French army, it certainly would have contributed to a more effective defense. So perhaps the French could have saved their own hides if they weren’t so proud of themselves.

    So it would be foolish to rely solely on the GMD for defense against nuclear threats. And I don’t think we are. At the same time, if we searched every shipping container, and prevented any “rogue” ships from cruising near our shores, but we ignored the ICBM threat, then I think we’d still be missing a piece of the puzzle. So I think we need to protect ourselves on all fronts. Hopefully we’ll get our act together regarding port security before it’s too late…

  • #31 – whoah…cool link! But you know what? That proves that SADM had WMDs! πŸ˜‰ (ok, weak…)

    Hmmm…my guess is that Al Qaeda can’t afford those suitcase nukes yet, but perhaps if they are frugal and save their money, the more industrious terrorists will be able to buy one before they retire.

  • “Moonbats.” Both are terms for crazy, is all. From moon, lunar, lunatic, loony. Bats, batty mean crazy also. Bats in his belfry.

    Just a redundant term, “loony crazies”, loosely.

    They call us the “loony left,” so it’s all consistent.

  • Researching a missile defense system is something I could go along with. When the Bush administration decided that rolling it out when it still didn’t work was a good idea it was just further confirmation of my low opinion of them.

  • One of the first thing BushCo did after coming to office was pull out of the ABM treaty and start the deployment of a “missile shield” against the possibility of a N. Korean attack. This was done in conjunction with a pullback from the Clinton policy of engagement with the N. Koreans. It is likely that BushCo. felt they didn’t need deal with N. Korea diplomatically since the “magic cloak” would protect us in the event that Kim Jung-il obtained and used nukes. Of course, our emperor had no “cloak” and therein lies the danger with the “shield”. It allowed BushCo. act as if the N. Korean threat didn’t exist even though in the short run Kim Jung-il would more likely use means other than a missile to deliver a nuke.

    Also, CB you know you’ve arrived when a wingnut calls you a moonbat. Congrats, you are on your way up.

  • Totally OT, but on the subject of Wal-Mart Voters returning to the Democratic Party:

    Wal-Mart Warms to Al Gore

    “Former Vice President and environmental activist Al Gore is planning to address Wal-Mart Stores Inc. executives next week at the retailer’s quarterly conference…”

    PR ploy or not, it does show Wal-Mart choosing to associate with well-known progressive Dem.

  • This situation reminds me of the MASH episode where Hawkeye and
    his confederates decided to help the Korean bomber in the biplane
    to destroy the ammo dump placed next to their hospital by using mechurachrome to paint red arrows onto sheets to direct the bomber
    to his target.
    It worked and the ammo dump was destoyed.
    Mabye George Bush needs to try a similar tactic that could help the
    interceptors to find the Korean missiles Kim Jong IL is sending our way.
    How Bush handles this crisis will define the rest of his presidency.
    But considering his track record with Katriana relief and Iraq I am not too
    hopeful.
    He’s going to need a lot of mechurachrome!

  • questionable competence damn, what do you have to do to get condemned as totally incompetent? Shoot your lawyer in the face?

  • When it came to detecting and tracking the NK missile launch, it sounds like our brand-spanking new missile defense system had a little help. Arkin (07.06.06):

    “The notification [of the North Korean launch] came from the well-worn, Cold War-era, early-warning system. Seconds after the rocket engines ignited on their launch pads, infrared cameras aboard Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites detected the heat and transmitted an alert back to U.S. command centers in Colorado Springs, Colo., where the type of missile determined and the trajectory was calculated.

    Activity at the launch sites had primed those U.S. infrared satellites for more than a month, intelligence sources say. Spy satellites and U-2s detected movement, NSA intercepted signals; North Korea even reportedly issued a standard public ‘notice to mariners’ announcing a forthcoming military exercise and missile test.”

    Should the U.S. Use Its Intelligence To Pressure North Korea?

    DSP satellites? They’ve “been the spaceborne segment of NORAD’s Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment System since 1970.”

    U2’s have been flying since 1955 or so.

    To top it all off, it sounds like NK issued a public “notice to mariners”.

    Other than that, though……

  • It will always be the case the for missle defense, counter-measures will be less expensive than the system itself. This has been pointed out time and again by real experts who understand the systems and their costs.

    One of the funny things about these systems is they are especially unable to track primitive missles due to their uneven trajectories. That makes even less likely that it would work against the junk North Korea would launch.

    Its just a stupid idea from an engineering/cost-benfit analysis.

    It’s a waste of America’s resources, and it reflects on the poltilical system’s inability to set appropriate policies based on logic and science. Oh, I forgot the president listens to his gut on the important stuff.

  • Comments are closed.