Star Wars: Still Buggy.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Star Wars: Still Buggy.
2
Sat, 04-03-2004 - 7:50am

I remember before 9/11 Star Wars was being extensively discussed, by Bush. At the time I thought terrorism SB a more important avenue to follow, although I was thinking more along the lines of internal attacks such as McVey/Nichols/uni-bomber.


When Reagan first spoke about SW's I shook my head incredulously & I'm still shaking it.


The missile defense program continues to have strong supporters.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040405-605497,00.html



Star wars has quietly come of age. Last week marked the 21st anniversary of President Reagan's speech laying out his dream of building a missile shield that would render nuclear-tipped missiles "impotent and obsolete." And the Bush Administration is plowing ahead with plans to have a rudimentary system capable of doing just that ready before this fall's election. But concerns about the system's technical capabilities — and its necessity — continue to mount.


A congressional audit recently found that the system is largely unproved and its technical challenges "remain significant." A senior Pentagon official told Congress last week that one of the missile shield's key satellite systems will cost more and take longer to get into orbit than planned. A day later, 49 retired U.S. military generals and admirals, including William Crowe, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, urged President Bush to delay building the system until the bugs are worked out. Among other things, no one knows whether the system will work at night or in bad weather.

One problem for the military men is money. Bush wants to spend $10.2 billion on missile defense next year. The retired generals would rather see it spent securing the nation's nuclear weapons and materials and protecting ports and borders against terrorists armed with unconventional weapons. The U.S. military can already pinpoint missile launches, they noted, so any rogue state would be "risking annihilation from a devastating U.S. retaliatory strike" if it launched a missile strike from its territory or allowed terrorists to do so. That, they argued, is a better deterrent than a costly, unproved missile-defense system.

But at a time when Bush is drawing fire for not adequately protecting the nation against 9/11, deploying the missile shield may be a political necessity. The Administration insists that 9/11 points up the threat posed by rogue states working with terrorists. The Pentagon's missile-defense chief, Lieut. General Ron Kadish, told Congress that the antimissile program "is structured to deal with the enormity and complexity of the task."


I totally agree with the following.......


What Americans Are Saying About Star Wars.


"The National Missile Defense is indeed a National 'Mythical' Defense because it protects against a boogeyman threat, could not accomplish what it promises to do, dismisses human need in favor of the profits of the few, puts into jeopardy treaties that protect us all, and will almost certainly provoke other nations who will be threatened by it . . . Real national security and real human security can be bought at a much cheaper price and attained at less risk by strengthening our first lines of defense, a common security among nations."


Letter written to President Clinton.............More.......


http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/media/publications/americans_sayingtext.htm


Missile misses target, officials call it a success.


http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/bmd/test_miss_a_success.htm

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Sat, 04-03-2004 - 8:43am
<>

I have heard so much over the years that this is a bad idea with strong support. I keep wondering why the keep throwing money at this project. Is it the defense government/industry connection or to the neo-cons have something else in mind? The more I hear the less I trust these people.

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 04-03-2004 - 6:16pm
The fact that they actually proposed putting an untested system in place is really "buggy".

I too opposed Star Wars during the Reagan era, because of the cost and the lack of technical ability to build and implement it. Of course, I didn’t think it would actually protect us and as 9/11 has shown, it wouldn’t have. But it is unbelievable that our technological ability to work out the kinks in this proposed system is still so inferior – not that I would then support it.

C