3.28.2004
A Few Thoughts on "Missile Defense"
Fourty-Nine retired Generals and Admirals have counselled the Bush Administration to toss the unproven "missile shield" idea aside in favor of spending defense budget money where it can succesfully be used.
"to secure the multitude of facilities containing nuclear weapons and materials and to protect our ports and borders against terrorists who may attempt to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the United States."
Why would Mr Bush want to throw 10.2 Billion dollars at a missile defense shield that is untested, making it the highest funded arms program in the current GOP bag of tricks?
It is one element of a larger missile defense effort -- estimated to cost $53 billion over the next five years -- that will use ships at sea and other methods to track and deflect missile launches. Navy Secretary Gordon England announced Monday that a specially equipped Aegis destroyer will be positioned this fall in the Sea of Japan, where it will be an alert for North Korean missile launches.
Let's follow the money. Below I list some missile defense "biggies" and where thier campaign contributions went- I offer the percentage that went to GOP coffers..
Boeing $184,400 64%
General Dynamics Corp
Lockheed Martin Corp $756,041 61%
Northrop Grumman Corp $741,772 60%
Raytheon Co. $396,644 53%
"Axis of Influence: Behind the Bush Administration's Missile Defense Revival" can fill you in on the confluence of Neocons, lobbyists and industry insiders that both promote and gain from this unproven weapons system trhat has already cost taxpayers 160 billion dollars. Yes, the report is nearly two years old- but it serves up the meat on the matter, offering history and players to give you context for the todays news reads.
The Union of Concerned Scientists offers a graphic with links showing just how artificial tests of this system are. With the amount of money flowing into a system that has failed so readily in tests that are obviously non-reality oriented one might come to the conclusion that the whole deal is rigged, a subsidy for GOP aero-space supporters. You'd be wrong.
The same non-working systems have been sputtering halfassedly through tests through the Clinton presidency as well. A history of "fixed" tests have followed this "missile Shield" concept since it's inception under Mr Reagan. I say "followed" because the truth of the tests rigging doesn't usually see light right away- it took 9 years for the truth of its bogus 1984 tests to come to light.
The top ten states benefiting from development of the missile shield, 1998-2001:
Alabama
$4,018,262,000 ( Red State)
California
$3,213,418,000 (Blue State)
Virginia
$716,019,000 (Red State)
Colorado
$459,776,000 (Red State)
Massachusetts
$323,462,000 (Blue State)
Florida
$248,747,000 (Grey Area?)
Washington
$99,217,000 (Blue State)
Maryland
$95,615,000 (Blue State)
New Mexico
$84,878,000 (Blue State)
Utah
$81,511,000 (Red State)
Total Funds Contributed:
$9,340,905,000
Recent article:
The top U.S. weapons tester told Congress Thursday it was too early to say if a multibillion-dollar missile shield -- due to start deployment this year -- would thwart a North Korean attack.
Article from '99>
"They can't get it to work, but the political momentum is probably irresistible," said John Pike, a space specialist with the Federation of American Scientists and a longtime critic of the program.
The Center for Defense Information offers up current, factual information on missile defense "tests". Read and learn. Your tax dollars at work. Or not.
An Afterthought
Donald Rumsfeld is a long time proponent of this consistently failing program. We have covered that he has "cooked the books" to counter a CIA estimate that Missile Defense was unnecessary while he chaired the "Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States".
A non-effective missile defense plan that enriches corporate contributors while actually increasing the worlds arms-race. Effectively keeping arms manufacturers rolling in the green in a world made less stable.
Same as it ever was...
3/28/2004
|
|
|
