« New York Supreme Court Robs Conservatives of Meaningless Campaign Issue | Main | This Makes Me Proud To Be An American »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

You write:

"Our $120 billion missile shield has never come close to working, even under the most controlled and favorable conditions."

That'll come as news to the Pentagon. According to the BBC (hardly Fox News):

The United States military has carried out a successful test of its new missile defence system.

A dummy warhead was launched over the Pacific Ocean at 2111EST (0211GMT Saturday), and was hit by a ground-launched missile 20 minutes later.

The US military now has a four-out-of-six success rate over three years.

You then write:

"if you think about it, there's no real incentive for the government to pretend that it doesn't work if it does."

Well, I thought about it, and one incentive would be to provide a disincentive for countries to expend resources on technology overcoming the US defense system.

If potential adversaries don't believe the sytem works, they will not invest in upgrading their strategic missile systems to thwart US anti-missile system.

This is especially true it, as missile defense opponents claim, such a system could be defeated by technology upgrades.

I'm not saying that's what the US is doing -- indeed, I seriously doubt it -- but to say there is no incentive for the US to down play its capability is mistaken.

I love all the liberal yucks about this N. Korean situation. The pathetic efforts of those who have been against a missle defense system to suggest that 1. there is no threat, and 2. that the U.S. efforts have been a complete failure are as inaccurate as they are pathetic.

Allow me, my friend, to suggest for a moment that N. Korea's failures are not, in fact, what make us safe, but rather what make this situation particularly dangerous. Reflecting back on the cold war we can remember that while we had a real capable enemy, it was that enemy's competence that somewhat ironically assured our safety. In short they were rational, and we knew that the doctrine of MAD was a real deterent.

In N. Korea what we have is the exact opposite. What we have is an incompetant enemy who is quite anxious to prove that they are a threat. Thanks to your liberal demi-God, Billy Bohica (bend over here it comes again), we provided said enemy with 2 billion (American) of nuke technology effectively giving them radio active stuff without requiring any responsible behavior on their part. Allow me one question. If they have radio active stuff, what is to prevent them from a lower tech provocation that might prove their seriousness? In fact, isn't their inability to launch an effective missle attack, combined with their possesion of truly frightening technology the exact combination that we should be worried about?

Go ahead and yuck it up though. That Limbaugh and his listeners are definately a bunch of rubes! I'd only make the point that you seem to talk about what you heard on his show an awful lot for a guy who is above it all.

How irrational are the North Koreans? Because North Korean railway stock is so decrepit, China has been using Chinese trains to transport aid to the Hermit Kingdom. The Koreans have now begun seizing the Chinese trains. Demands by the Chinese that the trains be returned have been rebuffed, with the Koreans asserting that the trains constitute part of the aid and now belong to them.


If this is how you treat your only friend. . . .

In reply to your first point Conrad is this the same very successful missile defence system that requires a beacon in the dummy warhead? Thought so... Sadly I doubt the Norks are so accomodating.

And another thing, who gives a shit if it is on the BBC or FOX, it is still basically a pentagon press release.

Just in case you want to read something about the launches that isn't a pentagon press release:

Yeah it's from 2001 but the spin doctors and liers are still running the same show. Imagine not telling anyone the successful test with "decoys" had to work as the "decoys" didn't have GPS beacons in them.... it would be funny if it wasn't costing a fortune.

Figures a guy named "Ivan" would be referencing a Salon article from 2001. Is it Tass my Komrade?

I believe this "Ivan" is the same semi-literate fantacist who regularly posts unintellible bollocks, under that name, over at Peking Duck.

"unintellible bollocks" being the same as "unintelligible bollocks", only less intelligible.

Sorry different Ivan, damn I will have to use a different name now...

Oh and that article being from 2001 is not so bad when you consider that the BBC article Conrad quoted from is 2002:)
I have not heard anything to inspire confidence since then, so I guess based on the information we have now the missile sheild is pretty useless unless you happen to have a big fat missile defence program contract.

My apologies Ivan. I stand corrected. You are not the nitwit in question.

The comments to this entry are closed.