RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,176798_5,00.html

SO LONG MOM (Tom Lehrer)(1961?)

So long, mom,
I'm off to drop the bomb,
So don't wait up for me.
But while you swelter
Down there in your shelter
You can see me
On your TV.

While we're attacking frontally
Watch Brinkally and Huntally**
Describing contra*****lly
The cities we have lost.
No need for you to miss a minute of the agonizing holocaust. Yeah!

Little Johnny Jones, he was a US pilot,
And no shrinking violet was he.
He was mighty proud when World War III was declared.
He wasn't scared, no siree!

And this is what he said on
His way to Armageddon:

So long, mom,
I'm off to drop the bomb,
So don't wait up for me.
But though I may roam,
I'll come back to my home
Although it may be
A pile of debris.

Remember, mommy,
I'm off to get a commie,
So send me a salami
And try to smile somehow.
I'll look for you when the war is over,
An hour and a half from now!

forget missle defense BHO wants that money for the reconquista or some other socialist program aimed at destroying america.

In discusssing Missile Defense, one man said all that really needs to be said on the issue in one sentence:

quote:

Wouldn't it be better to save lives thant to avenge them?

Ronald W. Regan
40th President of the United States
23 March 1983

This message has been edited. Last edited by: oseles,

Good OpEd, but what happened to pages 4 & 5?

Here are pages 4 & 5, since Military.Com can't manage to post the entire article:

North Korea poses a threat to U.S. forces stationed in-theater with its single-stage No Dong missile. The No Dong, which serves as the rocketry building block for the Taepo Dong, can reach American bases and forces in Japan, which might be called upon in a Korean Peninsula contingency. On the peninsula, the 25,000 or so American troops also face a North Korean ballistic missile threat, consisting of several hundred short-range scudb/c tactical ballistic missiles capable of reaching targets in the South within minutes of launch. While there are still questions about the ability of Pyongyang to successfully mount a nuclear warhead capable of withstanding the great heat and pressure common to medium- and long-range missile flight, the North Koreans likely can mate chemical and biological weapons to scuds.

Adding to the anxiety about North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities are recent reports about Pyongyang's proliferation activities off the Korean Peninsula: North Korea may have been furtively assisting Syria with a nuclear program of its own. Last September, in a still-secretive raid, Israeli fighters leveled a suspected Syrian nuclear facility in the northern part of the country at al Kibar, which, as details dribbling out into the media have shown, may have been supported by North Korean technology and technicians.

While this sort of negative exposure is not good for Pyongyang's public image on the world stage, the destitute North Koreans are likely willing to work with any number of state actors on nuclear and ballistic missile matters if the price is right.

China challenge

While not an avowed adversary of the United States, China is -- without question -- involved in an intense competition with America for power and influence in the Asia-Pacific region and, with little doubt, globally. Chinese great power ambitions are buttressed by a robust military modernization effort, which has been growing at a double-digit rate for over a decade now. Indeed, China now has the world's third largest defense budget, according to the Pentagon, growing at an average of 18 percent for the last two years alone. Moreover, according to some security analysts, China has the most active ballistic missile program in the world, most likely a reflection of the unresolved situation surrounding the longstanding political stand-off with China's cross-Strait rival, Taiwan.

Since the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949, the prc has considered Taiwan to be a province of the People's Republic. While progress on any form of political reconciliation has been lacking, China has not renounced the use of force in resolving Taiwan's political future. And while the United States does not have a legal obligation to defend Taiwan, under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, aggression against the island would be considered a serious threat to American interests as well as a violation of longstanding U.S. policy of promoting a peaceful, mutually agreeable resolution of the issue. Consequently, if the prc were to move against Taiwan with force, it is widely believed in Washington policy circles that the United States would militarily oppose such a move, bringing U.S. and Chinese forces into direct military contact in the Western Pacific.

To deter Taiwanese movement toward independence or other acts China considers "hostile," the prc has deployed vast numbers of df-11/15 (css-6/7) short-range ballistic missiles along the coast opposite Taiwan; Pentagon estimates run in the range of 1,000 to 1,100. Moreover, China is believed to be deploying roughly 100 new, highly accurate ballistic missiles a year to augment an already overwhelming force opposite Taiwan. Some have asserted that the number of new missiles may be pushed to 200 per year.

These missiles not only provide strong Chinese deterrent to unwanted Taiwanese political or military actions, but also could be used to great effect in a "bolt from the blue" scenario to decapitate Taiwan's political leadership or strike critical military targets such as ports, airfields, and air defenses. Apropos of what it considers outside interference in an internal matter, China does maintain limited medium-range, intermediate-range and icbm forces for deterring, delaying or denying the threat of foreign military involvement in a Taiwan contingency, such as by the United States and Japan, as well as other potential military contingencies with the likes of Russia or India.

China has modernized its land-based strategic nuclear deterrent too, adding road-mobile, solid-fueled icbms to its arsenal, increasing its deterrent effect and survivability. A new concern is China's plans to put its nuclear deterrent to sea, equipping its Jin-class (Type 094) nuclear submarines with the new jl-2 missile with intercontinental range; a jl-2 was tested in late May. Of equal concern, beyond the growing capacity of China's ballistic missile force, is the continuing potential for witting -- or unwitting -- proliferation of wmd and ballistic missile technology or materials. While China's proliferation record has improved, concerns still exist about ties with North Korea and Iran.

Resurgent Russia

The russian federation, like China, is not an enemy of the United States, but it, too, desires to play a leading role on the world stage, balancing other centers of power such as the European Union and nato with its political, economic, and military might. Russia has readjusted its foreign policy orientation from one that was Western-looking to one that is increasingly independent in recent years -- even anti-West, deepened by the war in Georgia this summer over the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. As many have asserted, today's Russia is confident, prideful, wealthy, and interested in reasserting Russia as a great power.

Indeed, some would argue that Russia's chief global foreign policy objective is nothing less than recreating its superpower status. While Russia isn't necessarily looking to become the Soviet Union again, it would like to exert decisive leverage on the international system, as the Kremlin did during the Cold War. To achieve these ends, Russia today maintains its position as the world's second mightiest nuclear weapons state, with over 600 strategic offensive weapons, buttressed by a significant military modernization program to revitalize the once-proud Russian military.

Its ballistic missile force is part of that effort. Russia has one of the world's most active ballistic missile testing programs, planning to test-launch nine ballistic missiles in 2008, according to a senior military commander in May. Russia is putting an average of three mobile and three to four of their newest silo-based Topol-m (ss-27) icbms into operation every year. Moscow may double its test launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles after 2009, based on Russian military claims. According to some sources, Russia is already working on a follow-up to the ss-27, based on reports of testing in May. The new version is expected to be equipped with multiple, independently targetable reentry vehicles (mirvs). Moscow is also testing a new submarine-launched icbm.

Adding to security concerns, Russia is threatening to pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (inf) treaty, which eliminated that class of ballistic missiles in a 1987 arms control treaty with the United States. Moscow is uncomfortable with the increase in the number of states around its periphery that now have intermediate range ballistic missiles that did not have them when the treaty was signed over 20 years ago, such as India, Pakistan, Iran, China, and North Korea. This could lead to a bump-up in Russia's missile arsenal.

Treaty trouble

Shortcomings in the 1970 npt and the Missile Technology Control Regime (mtcr), moreover, provide further reason to look to missile defenses to help insulate the United States from ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons proliferation. The npt, which is well-intentioned and may have dissuaded some states from pursuing nuclear weapons, is in dire need of an overhaul. It is rife with loopholes, such as allowing a wide range of nuclear activities closely related to nuclear weapons work. The accord also lacks the requisite teeth to ensure enforcement. North Korea threatened to leave it and then did so with its requisite 90-day notice before its 2006 nuclear test; Tehran ignored its tenets for 20 years before its nuclear activities were disclosed, not by the npt 's Praetorian Guard, the iaea, but by an Iranian dissident group.

The proliferation of ballistic missiles is not prohibited by any international treaty. The mtcr is a volunteer organization, which has been weakened over time by states that have flouted its principles when advantageous for hard currency, military assistance, or strategic influence. As a result, in recent years, the United States decided that leaving itself deliberately vulnerable to any weapon system or state -- as it did during the Cold War -- was foolish. Deliberate vulnerability can lead to perceptions of weakness, inviting provocation or aggression. In addition, it can lead a potential adversary to use threats, intimidation, blackmail, or coercion to achieve its objectives. In a day of seemingly unstoppable proliferation, the chance that horrific weapons will be used against peaceful nations is a troubling possibility.

Every state has an undeniable right to self-defense. It only makes sense that all reasonable, necessary steps are taken to protect and advance one's national security, especially if the technological capability is emerging to do so, as evidenced by tens of successful missile defense tests. Hitting a bullet with a bullet in the atmosphere, or even space, is now possible. Developing and deploying missile defenses is not about the missile or wmd threat from a single country or even several countries. Missile defense is about protection from these weapons no matter where the threat comes from now -- or in the future.

And despite the range of concerns about missile defense, it should be emphasized that it is a defensive -- not offensive -- weapon. Indeed, the missile defense interceptor warhead does not even contain an explosive charge; traveling at 15,000 miles per hour, it destroys the missile warhead by the sheer force of the collision. Missile defense is like an umbrella; it is needed only if it rains. It threatens no one. It only undermines the capability of one country to threaten or attack another country with its ballistic missiles or wmd. The idea that the deployment of missile defense will provoke an attack is a canard meant to encourage passivity.

The United States has made it clear to concerned states that missile defense does not threaten their security, emphasizing that it is part of an expanding effort to counter the growing ballistic missile threat -- wherever it comes from. Of course, no country should expect to have a veto over America's security. Indeed, those states that oppose missile defense would do better to turn their protests toward Tehran and Pyongyang and other capitals that are driving the need for it with their growing offensive ballistic missile capability, their own missile production, or their proliferation practices. Moreover, some security analysts speculate cautiously that the successful deployment of an effective missile defense may one day convince countries that their pursuit of missiles and wmd should be abandoned as futile endeavors, supporting widely accepted nonproliferation goals.

Cold War-like mutually assured destruction or massive retaliation should not be the only options for policymakers. In the end, it is clear: Missile defense will improve America's security against the growing challenge of ballistic missiles and their unconventional payloads.

Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow and a former deputy assistant secretary of defense.

Hey, hey, Brookes, how much money did nutty corporate neocons pay your ghostwriter(s) to write this fear and loathing screed?

Let us be clear here, nobody is being fooled by the technology, or shall I say the lack thereof. Rummy took this non-operational system and basically declared it operational, stuck it in the ground, gave a nice speech, and went off on his other nutjob ideal, but the real test, that has NEVER been done, is to send up a missile as it will arrive, unannounced, trajectory unknown, spoofs, etc, etc. This white elephant was simply a big slice of corporate welfare pie, and also another nutty neocon ideal of ringing Russia with these systems---wholly unprovocative and unrelated to the Russia's belligerence---right. Oh, but we've deployed anti-missile systems, Patriots to Israel, because----certainly this would have nothing to do with the Israelis launching an attack on Iran? Hilarious, and idiotic is what best describes these fascist chickenhawks like Brookes and of course his ghostwriters who have never served and no nothing about war....I say let them go join Israel's army and let them and all those kooks that inanely preach about America fighting for Israel, die for their beloved Zionist zealots.

An afterthought... Politically, wouldn't it be better to promote a very expensive global missile defense scheme when the country is a little more solvent? When troops sent back 4 o 5 times to the ME don't have to forefeit their military careers to avoid going back some more? When Americans can drive over a bridge and not wonder if it's going to collapse under them? When a significant portion of those 45 million without health coverage can have some? When there are enough technologically educated and qualified American citizens to staff the effort of making a missile system without having to hand out thousands or tens of thousands of special visas? Just some thoughts.

"The United States has made it clear to concerned states that missile defense does not threaten their security, emphasizing that it is part of an expanding effort to counter the growing ballistic missile threat -- wherever it comes from."

Obviously not.

If that were the case there would be a great deal more support for such an 'equilibrium buster'.

The US, and the world, have less to fear from rogues such as Iran and Korea who, should they sow the wind by using a nuclear strike, would reap the whirlwind, than from a nuclear power with the notion that a missile defence makes using nuclear weapons a valid tactic.

The US track record of 'aggression' toward other countries since WW2 is a great indication that rationality and level-headedness is not often valued in such decisions.

Mr. Brooke's monograph is prima facie evidence that bullsh*t, prolixity and data overload are still used to baffle American brains.

I need missile defense, too their, " ROCKY "!

Your not the only one who needs missile defenses, their," BULLWINKLE! "

The missile defense of "hitting a bullet with a bullet" is nonsense. Use a nuke (1 MT) and be sure. Defend the USA. The Europeans can build their own system and partner with the Russians. The whole system is a waste of money. There are many different ways to use nukes against an enemy without ballistic missiles and you can't defend against them.