http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2972065marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Mar-07-08 01:31 PM
Original message
Katrina vanden Heuvel: Missile Defense: "Longest Running Scam" Exposed Updated at 3:06 PM
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Fri Mar-07-08 01:32 PM by marmar
from The Nation:
BLOG | Posted 03/07/2008 @ 10:04am
Missile Defense: "Longest Running Scam" Exposed
In Congress yesterday, Representative John Tierney, Chair of the House National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, convened the first in a series of hearings to examine a US missile defense program that is out of control, straining relations with allies, and renewing an arms race with Russia.
This is the first comprehensive review of the program since 1993 – the year before Republicans took control of Congress – and it's long overdue. The focus yesterday was on the extent of the missile threat – as compared to other security vulnerabilities – and whether spending more than $10 billion annually on ballistic missile defense (BMD) is justifiable from that perspective.
In his opening statement, Rep. Tierney pointed out that we have spent over $120 billion on missile defense in the past 25 years; that the annual budget is expected to double by 2013 to $19 billion; and that the current $10 billion per year is equal to one-third of the Homeland Security budget, roughly equal to the State Department budget, greater than the FEMA budget, 20 times greater than public diplomacy expenditures, and 30 times greater than Peace Corps.
Dr. Stephen Flynn, Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and a retired Coast Guard Commander, testified that the "non-missile risk" – smuggling a weapon of mass destruction into the US by ship, train, truck, or private jet – is "far greater than the ballistic missile threat…." He noted that smuggling is the only realistic option for a terrorist group like al Qaeda; it offers anonymity to any attacking nation and therefore protection from retaliation; seaports, borders, and overseas flights "provide a rich menu of non-missile options"; and it has greater potential to "generate cascading economic consequences by disrupting global supply chains."
Despite these risks, Flynn said, "The combined budgets for funding all the domestic and international port of entry interdiction efforts… is equal to roughly one-half of the annual budget for developing missile defense. Nowhere in the US government has there been or is there now an evaluation of whether that represents an appropriate balance….The amount of resources we dedicate to the is miniscule compared to the kinds of resources we invest in dealing with the ballistic missile threat. That's the kind of disconnect we're operating in." ........(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=295515
Refresh | 10 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
sicksicksick_N_tired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Mar-07-08 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yep! Just another profiteering racket financed by YOUR dollars!
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Would you rather have the US and its allied vulnerable to enemy missiles? Ohh wait yes you would.
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Mar-07-08 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
3. Glad to see the ultimate scam get some attention.
This was the Bushies #1 plan for profiteering before they negligently allowed 9-11.
Iraq has become the #1 profiteering vehicle now, but missile "defense" still funnels huge amounts of our money to billionaire CEOs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Are you naturally stupid or do you have to work at it?
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Mar-07-08 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
5. Don't forget - the onetime we needed the expertise (9/11/2001)
Edited on Fri Mar-07-08 04:39 PM by truedelphi
That our billions of dollars provided, our planes were told to first fly over the Atlantic towards Europe, and then Russia, rather than toward the WH and the Pentagon where the attacks were imminent.
Or so one of our fearless commanders testified to the 9/11 Commission. He explained it had to be that way - the defense plans were drawn up during the Cold War with Russia - and had not been revised. (I guess it could have been worse - could have been drawn up back when we were fighting the Apaches in New Mexico!)
And why was it fighters that were out of Langley rather than Andrews? (Langley AFB is 130 miles from Washington - Andrews is 11 miles away)
"Only the Secret Service has Andrews phone number" the commander testified.
You would think that the American people would get what they pay for, but somehow we never do.
No victory in Iraq - despite the two or three TRILLLION dollar payouts to the military industrial complex.
And no defense of our homeland when we are under attack - though if you plan on getting on a domestic flight, you guldarn well better be prepared to take off your shoes, COmrade!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Mar-08-08 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
6. K & R
The missile defense business is a big scam. Bush wants to build bases for it in Easten Europe. Bush says we need the bases to protect Western Europe from an Iranian missile attack. I don't think Iran even has missiles that can hit Western Europe. There is no reason for Iran to launch a missile against Western Europe. There is no reason why we have to solve this problem for Western Europe when they have more money than we do. There is no explanation for why, if Iran had a missile and wanted to fire it, they would ignore the lethal retribution they'd receieve.
The only possible reason to build missile defense in Eastern Europe is to feed the military industrial complex.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
