Obama: "I will cut investments in unproven missle defense systems"

[Queasy]

Video of successful missile defense test

The military recently conducted ANOTHER successful test of a missile defense system. This time during the terminal phase of the missile's flight...the most difficult point at which to shoot a missile down.

HONOLULU (AP) ? The U.S. military intercepted a ballistic missile Thursday in the first such sea-based test since a Navy cruiser shot down an errant satellite earlier this year.

The military fired the target, a Scud-like missile with a range of a few hundred miles, from a decommissioned amphibious assault ship near Hawaii's island of Kauai.

The USS Lake Erie, based at Pearl Harbor, fired two interceptor missiles that shot down the target in its final seconds of flight about 12 miles above the Pacific Ocean.

The target was shot down about 100 miles northwest of Kauai in its final seconds of flight, about five minutes after it was fired.

The test showed Navy ships are capable of shooting down short-range targets in their last phase of flight using modified missiles the service already has, the military said.

The Navy and the Missile Defense Agency have already demonstrated that ships equipped with Aegis ballistic missile defense technology can intercept mid-range targets in midcourse of flight.

This is after using the same missile defense system successfully shot down that out of control satellite.

Over the next 20 months, the military plans to install terminal-phase missile interception capability on all 18 Navy ships equipped with Aegis ballistic missile defenses, Hicks said.

He said the technology would give commanders more options to defend against missiles, particularly if the Patriot missile defense system ? a land-based technology designed to shoot down missiles in their final phase of flight ? was unavailable.

"If I don't have a Patriot nearby on a shore station to do a short-range threat, near the defended area, I have nothing," Hicks said. "The flexibility of having a ship to complement the Patriot, or to be there when it can't be, is very high on a warfighter priority."

In the last Aegis missile defense test, in November, the Lake Erie fired two interceptors to destroy two ballistic missile targets simultaneously in space.

That marked the first time the U.S. missile defense system shot down two ballistic missiles at once in space.

In December, a Japanese naval vessel equipped with the Aegis ballistic missile defense system shot down a missile target off Hawaii. Japan became the first U.S. ally to intercept a missile from a ship at sea in that test.

And yet Sen. Obama declares this anti-missile defense system "unproven". This Aegis anti-missile system compliments the Patriot anti-missile systems and the long range THAAD anti-missile system which was just activated. The most recent test is the 30th of 38 successful test. A 79% success rate and most of the failures came at the beginning of the program. Yet, Obama calls these "unproven".

So, Sen Obama, why do you want to scrap a promising, obviously successful, and purely defensive system meant to protect civilians, allies, and our military men and women?

 

[Sacrilege]

Do you want those Social Security and Medicare benefits you've been paying for? How about the road you drive to work on? Is it important to you? If you want all that aaannnd the cool missile toys, you will have to pay more taxes.

 

[Aimster]

Can it take out scuds with multiple warheads? Because thats what most nations are building.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Can it take out scuds with multiple warheads? Because thats what most nations are building.

The missile defense system recently two out two targets simultaneously in space. If you've got multiple cruisers with Aegis defense systems and/or multiple Patriot batteries, you'll likely take down multiple targets.

 

[Descartes]

Link to where Obama says this specific anti-missile defense system is unproven?

I don't understand why so many people take such a hard stance on what politicians say, and that goes for McCain, Obama, Clinton or whoever. Obviously, if this evidence shows a successful test, then it's clearly not unproven. Unless you can show that he still says he'd scrap it despite successful tests, then I see no issue here.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Descartes
Link to where Obama says this specific anti-missile defense system is unproven?

I don't understand why so many people take such a hard stance on what politicians say, and that goes for McCain, Obama, Clinton or whoever. Obviously, if this evidence shows a successful test, then it's clearly not unproven. Unless you can show that he still says he'd scrap it despite successful tests, then I see no issue here.

Well, which missile defense system does he mean then?
The Aegis system? Successful in tests so far.
The THAAD system? As mentioned above, it is currently in service
The Patriot system? Track record of success

I don't know of any missile defense systems beyond these. And note, he doesn't say "system". He says "systems".

 

[Hecubus2000]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
Do you want those Social Security and Medicare benefits you've been paying for? How about the road you drive to work on? Is it important to you? If you want all that aaannnd the cool missile toys, you will have to pay more taxes.

Roads are usually paid for by state and local taxes. I seriously doubt we'll get any SS benefits 15 to 20 years from now. These programs are so screwed, getting rid of 50 missile defense systems would have little influence. I say keep them. This is something you would rather have and not need rather than the other way around IMO.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Hecubus2000

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
Do you want those Social Security and Medicare benefits you've been paying for? How about the road you drive to work on? Is it important to you? If you want all that aaannnd the cool missile toys, you will have to pay more taxes.

Roads are usually paid for by state and local taxes. I seriously doubt we'll get any SS benefits 15 to 20 years from now. These programs are so screwed, getting rid of 50 missile defense systems would have little influence. I say keep them. This is something you would rather have and not need rather than the other way around IMO.

Well, interstates are usually heavily funded by the federal government, even if the state does the building.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Descartes
Link to where Obama says this specific anti-missile defense system is unproven?

I don't understand why so many people take such a hard stance on what politicians say, and that goes for McCain, Obama, Clinton or whoever. Obviously, if this evidence shows a successful test, then it's clearly not unproven. Unless you can show that he still says he'd scrap it despite successful tests, then I see no issue here.

Well, which missile defense system does he mean then?
The Aegis system? Successful in tests so far.
The THAAD system? As mentioned above, it is currently in service
The Patriot system? Track record of success

I don't know of any missile defense systems beyond these. And note, he doesn't say "system". He says "systems".

I honestly don't know, so that's why I was asking. I'm no Obama apologist, but I can't imagine any president cutting spending on a defense system with actual viability. I just took it as him a harder fiscal responsibility line by saying he'll cut the spending sinkhole that tends to be government projects.

That said, I'm quite sure there are plenty of other projects floating around out there. The amount of spending that goes to projects that essentially produce nothing is often absurd.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Hecubus2000

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
Do you want those Social Security and Medicare benefits you've been paying for? How about the road you drive to work on? Is it important to you? If you want all that aaannnd the cool missile toys, you will have to pay more taxes.

Roads are usually paid for by state and local taxes. I seriously doubt we'll get any SS benefits 15 to 20 years from now. These programs are so screwed, getting rid of 50 missile defense systems would have little influence. I say keep them. This is something you would rather have and not need rather than the other way around IMO.

Well, interstates are usually heavily funded by the federal government, even if the state does the building.

The funding for that primarily comes from federal gas taxes. As mentioned, cutting missile defense systems will do little to save SS. If Obama wants to start somewhere, perhaps he should start with earmarks in Congress where the number of earmark requests doubled from last year to this year?

 

[jpeyton]

G O O D

Star Wars and missile defense is a waste of money.

 

[Descartes]

I pulled up his quotes again from here.

I again don't see the issue. He says unproven, so I can only assume that Obama, being overall a [hopefully] rational person, would not consider a system that has been proven as somehow unproven.

Obama seems to be taking a more visionary stance with respect to his policies, suggesting more changes in how the US handles itself rather than key specific issues. As such, the comments tend to be abstract and without direct reference to specific projects, people, etc.

 

[naddicott]

Cutting government programs that fail to prove themselves useful is part of the general approach to government Obama describes in his 2nd book.

Many Obama supporters believe that he'll surround himself with diverse enough perspectives to reach such failed/successful conclusions rationally, and that he will follow through on the philosophy of government that he has mapped out. Some others think the nice theory will fail in practice when it comes to killing failed projects that are some special interest's "sacred cow" projects, and that Obama will spend uncontrollably on every liberal cause he can. If he wins the general election, I hope the former prove to be right.

My question in regards to existing missile defenses, and this is an honest question I don't know the answer to, is have any of the successful systems figured out a way to get around multiple warhead countermeasures, especially on ICBMs? The anti-ICBM parts of Reagan-era Star Wars always seemed the sketchiest, from a "once you have it, your enemies can just cheaply design around it" standpoint.

 

[lupi]

Yep, with China and NK tossing missle out into the pacific I'd hate to waste any money on missle defense. :roll:

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: lupi
Yep, with China and NK tossing missle out into the pacific I'd hate to waste any money on missle defense. :roll:

That reply really took a lot of thought.

Have a seat, rest your brain.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: lupi
Yep, with China and NK tossing missle out into the pacific I'd hate to waste any money on missle defense. :roll:

The politics of FEEEEEEEEAAAAARRRR is back.

Quick, duck and cover! :laugh:

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Descartes
I pulled up his quotes again from here.

I again don't see the issue. He says unproven, so I can only assume that Obama, being overall a [hopefully] rational person, would not consider a system that has been proven as somehow unproven.

The general Democrat stance is to be against missile defense systems period. In their opposition to missile defense systems, they call these systems "unproven" just as Obama did here or mock it as "Star Wars".

 

[Aimster]

Russia continues to build missiles to counter these systems

so it's a big waste of money.

Unless these missiles are for rogue states like Iran. Iran cannot hit us and Israel has a better missile defense system than us.

Who else is there? NK? We can't stop their artillery anyways so if we ever do piss them off it's over for SK anyways.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Descartes
I pulled up his quotes again from here.

I again don't see the issue. He says unproven, so I can only assume that Obama, being overall a [hopefully] rational person, would not consider a system that has been proven as somehow unproven.

The general Democrat stance is to be against missile defense systems period. In their opposition to missile defense systems, they call these systems "unproven" just as Obama did here or mock it as "Star Wars".

Stars Wars should be mocked, though, as should the OP of this thread.

 

[Siddhartha]

So, we can expect that the Republicans will attack Mr Obama as being soft on defense and or war. How well will this work with the US voter?

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
So, we can expect that the Republicans will attack Mr Obama as being soft on defense and or war. How well will this work with the US voter?

Ouch! Play nice.

 

[ericlp]

Who gives a shit...

We need to cut a lot of the military spending... Apparently going to war over oil isn't working any more...

 

[Butterbean]

Here's a video of Mt Empty Suit discussing how he will gut the military - having figured out that making our enemies uncomfortable is the real source of problems. It's no wonder terrosrists and dictators around the world endorse Bama (not to mention the home grown nut jobs). I will give credit to Obama for being able to talk total rubbish with a very sincere voice. Hes a tremendous actor - better than even OJ. He's like an idiot savant.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Here's a video of Mt Empty Suit discussing how he will gut the military - having figured out that making our enemies uncomfortable is the real source of problems. It's no wonder terrosrists and dictators around the world endorse Bama (not to mention the home grown nut jobs). I will give credit to Obama for being able to talk total rubbish with a very sincere voice. Hes a tremendous actor - better than even OJ. He's like an idiot savant.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE

he wants to end "misguided defense policies." I'm sure in your head that translates to "gutting the military" but I don't think that is the case in the sense that Obama wants to make our military weaker. Maybe i'm wrong.

maybe a better way of looking at the issue would be Obama wants to be more efficient in military spending? in your clip he did mention reviewing defense policies to cut spending on programs that aren't necessary.

I guess my question is, why are we looking to weaponize space again? Surely not for the war on terror. I think others have pointed out that Israel already has a missile defense system. Maybe people are NOT used to our government looking to get the best bang for the buck in military spending, I don't see anything wrong with Obama's approach.

Its not like he wants to under supply our troops to the point that they have to go out and buy their own body armor.

 

[ericlp]

If you can find money to kill people...then you can find it to help people... I guess I'm all for decreasing are military and saving money in the long run...

We need to reduce our spending on war mongering ...