Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Bush Seeks $12 Billion to Waste on Obsolete Missile Defense

By Joseph Cirincione, Foreign Policy. Posted July 24, 2008.


Bucking the wishes of top Pentagon officials, Bush is pushing one of the largest military buildups in history.
fplogofinal
Advertisement

If President George W. Bush's budget requests are met, the United States will spend more this year than it ever has on antiballistic missile defense -- some $12 billion, or nearly three times what the United States spent on antimissile systems during any year of the Cold War. The United States would spend more than $60 billion on missile defense in the next six years, an unprecedented sum, even for the Pentagon. But what makes this spending most remarkable is that the threat it seeks to counter is actually declining. There are far fewer missiles, missile programs, and hostile states with missiles aimed at the United States and its armed forces than there were 20 years ago. The number of long-range missiles fielded by China and Russia has decreased 71 percent since 1987. The number of medium-range ballistic missiles pointed at U.S. allies in Europe and Asia has fallen 80 percent. Most of the 28 countries that have any ballistic missiles at all have only short-range Scud missiles -- which travel less than 300 miles and are growing older and less reliable each day. Even the number of countries trying to develop ballistic missiles is falling.

This is not to say that our world is without risks. Russia has more than 660 missiles capable of striking the United States. China has about 20. But these weapons are not the focus of the United States' antimissile program. In fact, U.S. officials have gone out of their way to assure Russia that the antimissile bases they seek to build in the Czech Republic and Poland are not intended to offset the Kremlin. They can't. There are countermeasures both the Russians and the Chinese can put on their missiles that would render any interceptor ineffective. Instead, the United States justifies the antiballistic missile program by the alleged threat from Iran. Of the $60 billion the United States wants to spend, $10 billion is earmarked specifically to counter a future Iranian missile.

The cost is real, but the missiles are not. Both Iran and North Korea are trying to develop long-range missiles that can strike countries far beyond their borders.

So far, they have had little success. North Korea's two tests of its much-hyped Taepodong missiles, in 1998 and 2006, both ended in failure. The first went about 800 miles and failed to put a satellite into orbit; the second blew up 40 seconds after launch. In the 1980s and 90s, Iran purchased from North Korea a handful of missiles with a 600-mile range, painted them patriotic colors, and gave them the Iranian name Shahab. Tehran has been boasting that it could use these weapons to develop a new generation of long-range missiles. But the Shahab test program has had as many failures as successes. Even if they were successful, the Iranians lack a nuclear warhead to put on a missile, and they are five to 10 years away from having such a capability.

Yes, Iran's efforts to build medium-range missiles must be countered. But they represent a threat that is orders of magnitude smaller than the 5,000 nuclear warheads that former President Ronald Reagan hoped to intercept when he launched the antiballistic missile program in 1983. Those were real warheads on real missiles. They could have destroyed most life on the planet. Yet, Reagan's program had an average annual budget of just $4 billion during the 1980s. Today, the United States is spending billions more, yet the technology is no more effective now than it was 20 years ago.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: bush, pentagon, military spending, missiles, antiballistic missile def

Joseph Cirincione is president of the Ploughshares Fund and author of Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
True, but let's uh see who's gonna help Bushie get yet this toy?
Posted by: jwverez on Jul 24, 2008 5:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The answer is simple. He can happily count on the rubberstamp zombies in the GOP and the spineless pansies in the Democratic Party to grant his wish. Congress has the power to stop him but won't or he wouldn't even be thinking about it. Bush ain't stupid you know so shut up and stop complaining. Get a real Congress that actually acts independently and does what is true and best for the nation and not the Big Defense interests and then we'll talk.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The worst threat is the one you don't see!
Posted by: carbon-based on Jul 24, 2008 5:19 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are less missiles pointed at the United States today?.. Probably true as the only one capable of pointing missiles at the United States was Russia.

Now, does Iran have a capability today of reaching the US.. no and probably won't in any foreseeable future.. (I'd have to assume Israel will neutralize that capability long before it ever becomes operational, if ever.

But the threat isn't Iran as stated, nor North Korea. Most press lately has been China shooting down a satellite and the implications for world powers.

Our anti missile technology goes way beyond Iran. China, contrary to what this article says, has become a real threat. China is fielding ballistic missile subs. In a few years they will have carriers. The major threat in the future is China, not Russia.

So basically we have MORE people pointing missiles at America, not less!

True Reagan did a incredible job of strengthening America's military while negotiating disarmament, but we don't have a "Reagan" again and little hope of that happening again considering who is running for President.

If America had developed a reliable workable system, missile threat would be a thing of the past. To not work on this is completely negligent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Completely negligent? Posted by: NWCrow
» RE: Completely negligent? Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: Completely negligent? Posted by: tommy_slothrop
When The Big One Goes Off on American Soil - You Won't Have a Bloody Clue Where It Came From
Posted by: opmoc on Jul 24, 2008 6:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chances are it will have a MADE IN THE USA sign painted on its side - just like the Thermite used on 9/11.

Best thing to do is behave and disarm all the bloody nukes and convert all that unspent energy into electricity using the latest generation of thorium nuclear reactors developed in India and Iran.

Your missiles are of no use and present a very serious risk to the future of the entire human race.

Convert them into electricity

Then you can all drive around in your fossil-free electric vehicles till the cows come home

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Looney lines and fun times! Posted by: carbon-based
Most Americans Are Ignorant Of How Careless Americans Are With Nuclear Missiles
Posted by: opmoc on Jul 24, 2008 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
well...
Posted by: jstepp590 on Jul 24, 2008 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, I agree with building a anti-ballistic missile defense. The reason isn't to stop Russian or Chinese missiles, they are nowhere near the threat (for right now) that they used to be. I also do not agree with spending so much money on it right now when our military spending is so high already. However, after growing up with the fear of nuclear war in the Cold War I will support anything that helps protect us.

The reasons I support it are two-fold.

1) A nuclear missile is called an MLRV (multiple launch reentry vehicle). This means that every missile carries 10 warheads, each powerful enough to destroy a city (each warhead many time more powerful than the ones used on Japan), killing tens of millions of Americans with one missile. The extreme damage inflicted with just one missile by itself is justification for a limited defense. Some rogue state or, even worse, private group that gets the plans and materials to build it could just plain cause too much damage to ignore. Even one stolen Russian SS-20 missile is not something you can ignore or wish away.

2) If we ever ended up in another cold war, or hot, having the technology already ironed out will make mass production far faster and simpler, therefore protecting our citizens better. As we all know this is not a simple technology and it will require a future opponent massive amounts of time and effort to meet or beat it, time they may not have. Also, any defense that anyone could come up with would not only be a temporary fix, it would also add massive amounts of complexity and cost to their missiles. That means we would face less of them.

By all means, build this system to protect us. I can already here the screams from people saying "why didn't we have this, useless government" when we lose several cities like N.Y. and L.A.! However, not that much money until our troops are home and without a current credible threat.

Once our troops are home, Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer supported by us, I'm all for it. Until then I feel its priority is too low considering our current obligations.

If they wanted to spend that money on building a space infrastructure that would be one thing as that will grow our economy and make/save money, making us more a more efficient country. Spending it on missile defense, which makes us no money or more efficient, is rather untenable right now.

Oh, by the way, I've been keeping up with this technology and it isn't as ineffective as the writer here seems to believe it is. It's not perfect, it's not 100% yet, but it's still better than nothing and improving every year.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: well... Posted by: madmax427
Nice
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Jul 24, 2008 7:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lovely, way to go there Dictator Bush!

JT
Ultimate Anonymity

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Defense Pretense
Posted by: fanny666 on Jul 24, 2008 9:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Defense Pretense

This is a radio series (free MP3 files) on the subject. Worth listening to one or all shows. Start with the last one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The nerve of those Iranians
Posted by: Pirate1 on Jul 24, 2008 10:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To feel that they might need a few long range missiles. They have been threatened with attacks by both the US and Israel and like any good Middle East Country they should know their place and roll over and say uncle. Israel has hundreds of real nuclear warheads and real missiles to carry them. The UN inspectors, the Iranians themselves, even our own CIA says that there is no nuclear weapons program going on in that country but like was done with Iraq, we are being lead down the road of fear by fools we should know better than to listen to by now. So what if our cowardly congress goes along and funds this big waste of time and resources... we all know that our country is about preemptive war now. We'll be shown some huge craters where Iranian villages used to be and be told they were missile installations and nuclear bomb plants and believe it. Wipe our brows, sweaty from fevered TV watching and say, "Whew, that Bush was right to build those missile bases in Poland."

We've become the world's idiots and deserve everything that is coming to us for doing things like going after ever more oil instead of taking the lead as a truly visionary country might do and becoming tops in the new emerging energy fields. Our children and theirs will be buying solar panels and films from Asia, South America and Africa and algae grown deisel fuel from plants with patents owned by India and wind turbines from the EU. A population drastically reduced by disease, starvation and regional wars over water and any remaining arable land will likely live along coastlines miles inland from where they are now in a largely desertified North America. They'll wonder what we were doing when there was still time to do things differently. Watching TV? Cheering Team Sports? Watching "Reality" Shows?Demanding to be able to run our ATVs anywhere we want to? To have the right to own lots of guns? Like that is important to anything but a fool?

For a moment I had a ray of hope with the idea of Obama but after the last 2 weeks, that slogan about change has clearly shifted to more of the same. So get ready, people. they'll be coming for you and me next.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pay attention!!!
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Jul 24, 2008 11:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Over the last 30 years or so, we continue to hear about these Star Wars projects that are going to help keep us safe. What no one wants to talk about is that none of the demonstrations have ever, I mean NEVER worked successfully!

Why is it that we can spend 12 Billion for defense programs that never work, yet won't spend 6 billion to ensure the healthcare of everyone in this country!?!??

Why is it that we can lavish money on the billion dollar industry of death and destruction and yet can't manage to take care of anyone but the uber-rich!!!

Think about it before you vote against yourselves!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

USA ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM: BUILT FOR POLITICAL REASONS AND FOR ESPIONAGE
Posted by: sofla100 on Jul 24, 2008 12:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some posters are a little confused on the capabilities or intentions of "missle defense." First of all, it's not aimed at China or Russia, because these countries already have cruise missle technology as well as submarines. They can fire a nuke that travels 50 feet off the ground from a mile or two off the USA coast line. So, that't not the issue with building a fixed anti-missle installation in Poland or the Czech Republic. So, why is the USA doing it? First of all, it's suppose to be for protection against Iran. But, we already know the Iranians are years away from developing missile technology capable of traveling any long distance. Next, the Russians are very mad about it. Why? Not because of any threat to there nukes, but because they believe the USA is building the system for (2) purposes only. First purpose is to gain a bulwark in a former communist country. This is a prelude to permanent bases. Next, as a tool for espionage. Using long range radar, the USA can monitor Russian military operations all the way out to the Ural Mountains. Therefore, this isn't about the non-existent threat from Iran. But, it's being built for political reasons and espionage. As for the system even working, I believe Bush and the Pentagon know its track record, that if it could shoot down 10% of older style ICBM type missiles that would be pretty good. These figures are based on the Pentagons own tests. However, Bush want's this system not because of its effectiveness or anything of that sort. But, to send a message to the Russians and to collect valuable military intelliegence. Also, it's a good way to get in the door in the former communist countries and will lead to permanent US bases.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Totally Useless
Posted by: vivachavez on Jul 24, 2008 6:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Missile defense is just another ponzi scheme to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich. The military wipes its ass with $100 bills yet we can't provide basic healthcare, childcare, and college tuition for our citizens.

THere is no chance Iran, North Korea, or China would ever launch a nuclear warhead at the United States unless attacked first.

NK and Iranian attempts to develop long range missiles are for purely DEFENSIVE reasons, since they have good reason to believe America will attack them soon. America doesn't attack powerful countries, only the weak ones.

The moral of the story? Don't be a weak nation. Then America won't invade you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» chinese bogeyman..... Posted by: denk
a 2 bit punk with his 1st gun.........
Posted by: denk on Jul 25, 2008 9:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"America squanders about what the entire rest of the world spends on security -- almost $400 billion a year. Who are we afraid of if all the bad guys combined still eat our dust? Isn't it time we started acting like a superpower rather then a two-bit punk with his first gun? But this won't happen until we constrain the war-mongering MICC. "

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]