Friday, June 10, 2005
Star Wars Missile Defense Following the Boeing Tanker Scandal Model
Remember how Fearless Leader wanted to install a ballistic missile defense system even if it didn't work because "we could always fix it later?" Well, "later" is apparently here:
Meanwhile, defenses against the far more likely attack scenario of somebody hijacking a container ship off the Indonesian coast, loading a nuclear device on board, sailing it to a port and detonating it at the US Customs dock remain unfunded. They wouldn't even need a nuke - they could just load it up with ammonium nitrate and repeat the "Texas City Disaster" that occurred in 1947 when a former Liberty Ship loaded with ammonium nitrate accidentally exploded in Texas City, 10 miles outside Galveston, Texas. Imagine the carnage from a similar explosion using one of today's much bigger container ships, detonated closer to population centers. Now ask: why are we wasting money on an ABM system designed to defend against a 20th Century style attack?
|
Panel Faults Tactics in Rush to Install Antimissile SystemHey, I live within rumored range of North Korean missiles. My philosophy is simple: First make it work, then spend the money to deploy it. Anyone crazy enough to launch ICBMs at us can't be bluffed - they'll be committing suicide and they'll know it.
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 10, 2005; Page A07
An outside panel chartered by the Pentagon has concluded that the rush to deploy a national antimissile system last year led to shortfalls in quality controls and engineering procedures that could have better assured the system would work, according to the panel's final report.
...
The panel's report reinforces concerns expressed by some Democratic lawmakers, scientists and other critics that the administration has moved too quickly to build an antimissile system whose effectiveness is still questionable and whose ultimate price tag -- in the tens of billions of dollars -- is excessive.
Meanwhile, defenses against the far more likely attack scenario of somebody hijacking a container ship off the Indonesian coast, loading a nuclear device on board, sailing it to a port and detonating it at the US Customs dock remain unfunded. They wouldn't even need a nuke - they could just load it up with ammonium nitrate and repeat the "Texas City Disaster" that occurred in 1947 when a former Liberty Ship loaded with ammonium nitrate accidentally exploded in Texas City, 10 miles outside Galveston, Texas. Imagine the carnage from a similar explosion using one of today's much bigger container ships, detonated closer to population centers. Now ask: why are we wasting money on an ABM system designed to defend against a 20th Century style attack?
