Bush’s National Security Adviser was supposed to give a speech on September 11, 2001.
Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address “the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday” — but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals…..The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text.
I’m willing to spread the blame around for 9/11. I think the intelligence community failed miserably. I’ll accept that both Clinton and Bush let other things distract them from focussing on a persistent threat. But there’s one thing I’m not willing to accept, and that’s making the same mistake twice.
According to today’s New York Times editorial, the Bush Administration is still foolishly focussed on missile defense. I don’t say “foolishly” because missile defense is a fool’s errand, but rather because it’s clear that this boondoggle is clearly politically motivated and not in the nation’s immediate best interest.
The administration’s obstinate intent is to fill the first silos in Alaska as early as this summer, even though the complex project — a composite of 10 separate systems for high-tech defense — is years from being fully tested or built. Plagued with cost overruns and technical failures, the overall missile defense program’s main feat of rocketry has been its price tag: roughly $130 billion already spent, and $53 billion planned for the next five years.
Mr. Bush ought to pay attention to the powerful advice just offered by a group of 49 retired generals and admirals who say he should shelve his fantasy start-up plan. They urge that the money for that project be spent instead on bolstering antiterrorist defenses at American ports, borders and nuclear weapons depots. As things stand now, the administration is again looking for showy but questionable ways to reinforce Mr. Bush’s identity as a wartime president, while ignoring sensible and effective low-tech strategies to reinforce homeland security.
{{{insert pithy pun with “fool” here}}}. I hope he reconsiders the Generals and Admirals’ advice.
Faith based defense policy — both as to terrorism policy and missle defense nonsense.
This proves that the Bush people can’t shooot straight when it comes to national defense, and that Kerry or most any other Dem (including Clinton) are much better at formulating and implementing sound defense policy.
The fact of the matter is that missile defence is an excellent way to defend one’s country from airborne nuclear attack.
Now, it may be that developments of the system should be delayed at the present time, so that funds can be moved to other areas. However, this does not mean that the plan is flawed and/or should be abandoned.
Attempting to protect oneself from one type of attack, namely of stealthy terrorist type, and ignoring another, namely of the ICBM type, is foolishness. No one knows what the world will look like in ten years, or twenty for that matter.
I can agree with you, Edward, that it may not be in your country’s immediate best interest, but I think that it is a valuable program.
can agree with you, Edward, that it may not be in your country’s immediate best interest, but I think that it is a valuable program.
Where are you from Nathan, out of curiosity?
North Korea.
Canada (Alberta, specifically).
I sometimes use ‘our’ in place of ‘your’ when talking about such things, but that is just because of Western Civ, Anglo tradition, and whatnot.
This proves that the Bush people can’t shooot straight when it comes to national defense, and that Kerry or most any other Dem (including Clinton) are much better at formulating and implementing sound defense policy.
An extraordinarily relaxed definition of “proves” is required to make the above statement true.
If missle defense is specifically designed for 2 or 3 countries (NK, and Iran, etc), and yet is aknowledged to be pointless against large industrial states (China,Russia)….which I think it obviously is, because large nations will develop counter-measures or overwhelm with quantity
Then simply take the rogue states out, or preemptively destroy the launch sites
I have seen no scenario in which this makes any kind of cost-effective sense.
Then simply take the rogue states out, or preemptively destroy the launch sites
Now exactly what would the response be from the world, if we took out all of the Iranian nuclear sites? BTW, I doubt China is in a position to abrogate any antimissle measures.
Eddie, while not your fault, I wonder why WaPo didn’t post Rice’s entire speech. Cherry picking and the liberal media continues to be a problem.
Eddie, while not your fault, I wonder why WaPo didn’t post Rice’s entire speech. Cherry picking and the liberal media continues to be a problem.
I’m sure it’s a good speech, Timmy. The point in linking to it was to show that although missle defense as a focus back then is perhaps defendable, today, it seems clearly a poor use of resources. At least for the immediated future.
I wondered the same thing, but basically–their source only gave them excerpts. The White House confirmed the accuracy of the excerpts, and declined to release the whole text.
We’re spending about 10x as much on missile defense as controlling and securing loose nuclear weapons and highly enriched uranium around the world. Maybe only 8x–I can’t remember the exact numbers off the top of my head, but it’s in that ballpark. Whether it’s 5x, 10x or 20x, it is stupid stupid stupid.
How can people who are so good at politics be so lousy, across the board, at policy? I’ll never understand it.
Frankly, given what is going on in the ME and the collective failure to contain both nuclear weapons programs as well as missile technology, missile defense should remain a priority which something that our allies Asia and Australia support.
I wondered the same thing, but basically–their source only gave them excerpts
Katherine, you mean someone on the 9-11 Commission leaked it don’t you. Is that a felony? And without the entire speech, how can WaPo come to any conclusion or at the very least note that only excerpts were made available by the leaker.
And the long term strategy is spot on.
BTW, I doubt China is in a position to abrogate any antimissle measures.
Timmy, not sure what you mean by “abrogate” here, but China is known to be working to make their nukes secure from NMD, perhaps due to the widespread suspicion that when we say NK we mean PRC. A random google.
Of course the ship-in-harbor delivery system will stay the old reliable for the foreseeable future.
Your expertise may be far greater than mine on the subject Timmy, but I have to believe those 49 retired General and Admirals know a bit about the threat from missles.
It took only box cutters on 9/11.
Timmy:
Missle defense as a research priority is OK. A multi-billion deployment of a non-functional system is not.
Can’t you tell the difference, and don’t you realize that the criticism is over the rush to deploy our version of the Maginot Line?
So Edward, if I get 51 admirals and generals to agree with me, now does that make me right?
rilkefan, now how many ICBMs does China have and much of their missile budget has been allocated to manned missions?
So Edward, if I get 51 admirals and generals to agree with me, now does that make me right?
No, you’d need twice that many, at least, Timmy
Got to compensate for your seemingly automatic defense of anything Bush does somehow. ;P
Just as a reminder, there’s NMD, and then there’s battlefield/theatre defense. Try not to get them mixed up. NMD funding has been miniscule in the last decade; most funding has gone to theater defense such as PAC-3, THAAD and the SM-2 and SM-3 based naval defenses.
Of course, the line between theater defense and national defense has been blurred because PAC-3 and THAAD are being integrated into a multilayer NMD. You could argue that THAAD and PAC-3 were developed with such ends in mind, but their primary immediate use is on the battlefield.
Timmy, I thought the Chinese had between two dozen and a hundred ICBMs depending who you ask – probably not very modern ones, though they’re supposedly deploying a new MIRVed version. Ask Jane if you care.
I don’t know what you’re referring to re “manned missions”, but whatever it is I suspect NK has contemplated a few, as has Ayman al-Zawahiri.
If one gets 51 admirals and generals to agree with one, it probably makes one credible.
Edward, raise the right issue, I can be very critical of the current Admin (data mining and risk derivatives both immediately come to mind as well as the current Homeland Security Dept–no MI5) 🙂
Out of curiosity, I have two questions:
1) Who are these generals and admirals, and to what organization do they belong?
2) Where does the author of this poorly referenced piece get his expenditure data? $153 billion spent on what programs, over what duration?
I’m a little reluctant to take this on face value, considering the face is mostly in shadow and out of focus.
Timmy, I should have said you can ask Slart if you care. Here I was thinking we’ve been spending $10 big on NMD per year, but apparently it’s been going to some multilayered system.
Actually, the NYT article makes some allusion to that it’s a multilayer system, if I interpret a composite of 10 separate systems for high-tech defense properly. So, if they’re counting expenditures for military battlefield defense systems under the NMD umbrella, it’s an error to do so.
Rilkefan, now isn’t it fair to say China relies on 1970’s ICBM technology when they have finally MIRVed their missiles. Of greater concern is the PRC’s aircraft carriers (3, 4 or 5, I’m not sure exactly how many) which is somewhat muted by the difficulty of running those big boats.
China totally slipped my mind. Star Wars ought to be effective against their low number of missiles and nukes. So my response is now:
China and North Korea.
As for how much is it worth, I suspect that protecting against a nuclear missile attack on a major city is worth at least a few hundred million. What was the estimated economic damage of the 9-11 attacks? I’m quite certainly it would be more than that.
“Now exactly what would the response be from the world, if we took out all of the Iranian nuclear sites?”
Timmy, have I like given you the impression I was a peacenik? If NK or Iran has nuclear warhead ICBMs, and looks like an imminent threat to use them against us, I would not give a flying f*** what the world thinks.
Nor will I feel secure behind any sort of a shield in the hope I have scoped all possible delivery platforms.
Since nuke material seems to be possible smuggled across a porous Chinese border, I am not sure we have waited too long already.
And so many psuedo hawks seem to feel their macho credentials have been completely bonified by the toppling of a 4th rate dictator, and now feel it is time to enjoy the fruits of their TV toughness, chickenhawk or bully seems to be the order of this administration
Slart, if you ever post on this, perhaps you could drop me a mail. I’d be interested in seeing a breakdown of the costs, NMD and otherwise. And frankly I was unaware any active battlefield defense system is under development and can’t even guess who it’s intended against.
China has about 20 ICBMs; each carrying a 2 MT unitary warhead. In development are a couple of multiple-RV weapons, none of which is (as far as I can tell) ready to be deployed.
As I said, rilkefan, THAAD and PAC-3 are both battlefield/theater defense systems, and are both in advanced development. PAC-3 is fielded, and THAAD is just now entering something like IOT&E. PAC-3 is the lower tier of a two-tier theater defense, and THAAD is the upper tier.
Timmy, have I like given you the impression I was a peacenik?
No, bob you haven’t. Just pointing out the issues the country would face.
As the previous discussion points out, China’s ICBM force is about 40 years behind the curve with technology funds being allocated to a deep water navy and a manned space program.
2) Where does the author of this poorly referenced piece get his expenditure data? $153 billion spent on what programs, over what duration?
Estimates of money spent to date and over next 5 years from the Missile Defense Agency’s own budget estimates. (PDF FILE)
Where’d you get “$153” billion, by the way?
First para of first google on THAAD:
“The Theater High-Altitude Area Defense [THAAD] system would provide extended coverage for a greater diversity and dispersion of forces and the capability to protect population centers. However, the principal additional capability provided by this system is its ability to deal with longer-range theater missile threats as they begin to emerge. THAAD also reduces the number of missiles that the lower-tier systems must engage and provides a shoot-look-shoot capability–the ability to engage incoming missiles more efficiently.”
This sounds to naive ears like what people used to call missile defense.
I see the Chinese tested its DF-31 not long ago with only partial success, which I guess puts it at the same level as our efforts.
Sorry, I just can’t come up with any scenario that evolves into a US/China confrontation moving toward nuclear that makes any sense.
China can’t take Taiwan without destroying it, if they could take it at all. And Taiwan is a paradigm for the rest of us, we are more useful to China as a source of capital and a market for their goods than as a subjugated province. And ir isn’t as if China is short on resources.
Somebody help me out here, if I am wrong.
Now Russia, on the other hand, may become a different story. And there are always the French.
bob on my macho credentials, China is the biggest fish in the pond with Central Asia and the I/P issue my principle concerns. Iran and the ME nuclear weapons bazzar continue to be issues but since we’ve opened the bazzar up the shit is just beginning to fall out.
And here’s a nifty chart breaking out program costs, for those that are interested. It’s half a decade out of date, but it places the costs on a decent scale.
This is an extremely detailed projection of what’s being planned. Dunno if it’s what is being executed right now, though.
Should’ve read $130 billion, Edward. Forgive, please; I’m multi-tasking.
Nyah, Nyah… Slarti,…beat you to it.
er, um…carry on.
Nyah, Nyah… Slarti,…beat you to it.
the link to the budget that is.
Too much sugar for lunch. 😉
bob, China’s short on water. And perhaps on Lebensraum.
Timmy, I don’t see how it helps your argument to say the Chinese are putting money into space. Anyway, if we put in place something that will take out half the Chinese ICBMs, I’ll eat my Yankees cap. That means LA, Denver, Chicago, KC, … If we’re putting into place something that will protect our port cities from container ships, I’ll eat a Red Sox cap.
This sounds to naive ears like what people used to call missile defense.
That’s because that’s what it is. There’s always been a push to enhance THAAD to defend against the ICBM threat, but until a certain treaty was dispensed with, designing (not to mention, testing) it to do so was pretty dicey.
That explains the 53 billion; the $130 billion spent is unexplained. Funny that I had linked to the correct budget without noticing that it contained the budget figure being referred to. Well, any possibility of delusions of grandeur have now been headed off.
Ah well. I still think we are engaging in a 19th century strategy here. That the age of nation- states thinking about wars to gain territory or other advantages is over. That Hitler, who conquered much of his world, but ran out of oil, proved the point.
If you get the world pissed at you, and no longer get imports of tungsten or DIMM’s or Keflex you are utterly screwed. There may be wars in the future, but they ain’t gonna be this kind of war.
That explains the 53 billion; the $130 billion spent is unexplained.
I haven’t totaled it, but that budget covers 2002 to 2009, so it’s both estimates and money spent I’m assuming. It seems unlikely the $130 billion was spent since 2002, although with this administration, it doesn’t seem impossible… 😛
“As for how much is it worth, I suspect that protecting against a nuclear missile attack on a major city is worth at least a few hundred million.”
Oh, for the love of God. The argument is not whether protecting against a nuclear attack is worth it. Do you really think that anyone thinks it’s not? (I had someone try to explain to me once, in the most patronizing manner possible, why even liberals should fear a nuclear attack on New York–because it would harm civil liberties and there wouldn’t be as much money for welfare, apparently–but I know you’re smarter than he is.)
The argument is actually:
1. Will it work? That is, is it technologically feasible?
(alternate phrasing: Is the chance that it will work enough to justify the expense?)
2. Will it have negative side effects?
3. Is this the most likely source of a nuclear attack? If there is a more likely source, shouldn’t stopping that be a higher priority?
I’m pretty skeptical about 1, but if you look at it as an attempt to deal with a few marginal nuclear powers and no more than that, and if you test it in a realistic way, maybe you can get around it. Maybe. No need to deploy it until it actually works, though; that’s just foolishness.
2 is probably less of a problem than it once was, provided that we offer protection to other countries too and we make it clear the limits of how we intend to use this system. We need to be careful of motivating China, India, and Pakistan, to name a few, to get around the system by simply making more missiles though–it will become that much harder to keep tabs on all of them so that terrorists don’t get any. Also, if we can’t convince Russia and Europe and China and others that this is no threat to them or to the world, we’re going to have a harder time convincing them to let us help them secure their own nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. But the U.S. might be able to overcome these problems, if the administration in power were good at diplomacy (she said, batting her eyelashes innocently.)
3 is the most important by far. Deterrence does not work against suicidal terrorists with no return address, and they are not very likely to attack us with missiles. There used to be a theory that terrorists don’t want to kill THAT many civilians because it will turn public opinion against them. I don’t know if this was ever true, but it obviously does not apply to Al Qaeda. Even with North Korea, the country that fits best into the missile defense argument–I’m much, much more worried about them selling warheads, uranium or plutonium to terrorist groups than I am about them launching a direct nuclear attack on Seoul or Tokyo, let alone the U.S. I know Kim is crazy, but like many homicidal dictators–including, say, Josef Stalin–he values his own life and his own power.
Of course you could fully fund efforts to keep terrorists from getting a nuclear weapon in the first place, AND fully fund efforts to keep them from smuggling it into the country, AND still have enough money to try out this missile defense thing.
But that’s not what the administration is doing. Given the wreck they’ve made of the budget, I don’t see them doing it any time soon. And I think that’s Edward’s point.
(by the way–when I said we spend about 10x as much on missile defense as securing nuclear weapons and material, I was using the $10 billion figure.
According to the Boston Globe:
“Still, the United States spends only about $1 billion a year to secure not just nuclear, but also chemical and biological, weapons inside the former Soviet Union. Last year, Congress authorized some of those funds to be spent outside the former Soviet Union without giving additional money.”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/08/7b_effort_to_disarm_ex_soviet_wmds_slows/)
I repeat: stupid, stupid, stupid.
Making it impossible for terrorists to get a nuclear weapon should be our highest priority, or at least in the top five. This should be a no brainer.
The remedy is not necessarily to elect Kerry instead of Bush, it could be to convince Bush to see all the threats and actually prioritize among them–but that won’t happen if conservatives just reflexively defend him, and if Congress is not serious about this stuff. So.
I agree with Rilkefan…excellent work again K.
Katherine, that’s a post, not a comment – why not make it so?
nah–two threads on the exact same topic becomes unnecessarily confusing.
I’m trying to think of an April Fool’s joke, but I can’t think of anything that would actually fool anyone.
If we’re putting into place something that will protect our port cities from container ships
Well that is already occuring but of course the strategy is to place assets offshore as well as the right to freely board ships of certain registry.
We haven’t yet resolved the rogue ship problem, a privacy issue. And then there was this ruckus about risk derivatives, something about efficacy issues. Never understood that one.
I’m trying to think of an April Fool’s joke
I emailed my partner and told him my puslishing company had decided to relocate to Virginia and we had to start looking for a house there right away…
He called all upset…I asked him “What day is today?”…there was a pause…then a growl…I suspect there’s something really awful waiting for me at home…
If China were truly interested in expansion, they wouldn’t be targeting our major cities. They’d be targeting military force concentrations. The cities count for bupkus in terms of military value.
But that idea is pretty moot anyway; I’m pretty sure we can still paste them pretty well in retribution (I think we still have a few hundred ICBMS), and rest assured we wouldn’t neglect their air and naval forces. And don’t forget that we have 18 Ohio-class submarines, each of which quite likely exceeds China’s total nuclear destruction capability. They might find Russia a softer target.
Good points, Katherine. But of course you have to consider whether spending more money on “nuclear containment” will get you anywhere. And that’s a topic about which I know a small number epsilon more than nothing.
Katherine,
Okay, so increase spending on securing nuclear weapons abroad. And, increase spending on securing points of entry.
Let us remember, however, that there is simply no way to secure every single point of entry at all times. And, that is what would be needed to ensure that no successful nuclear attacks will occur on our soil.
We must do our best to implement a comprehensive security package. That means diplomacy to convince states not to develop nuclear weapons, increased intelligence activities, increased security at points of entry, ruthless pursuit of terrorists and their enablers, and defense against missile attacks. It may also include frank threats and intimidation against rogue states.
Sacrificing one method of protection because of its cost, or because it may provoke hostile neighbours, is completely foolish. The threat from nuclear missile attack may well be decreasing, but I don’t want to take that chance.
Slarti–the short answer is that spending more will make a difference. (I’m not an expert either, but I’ve listened to/read quite a few of them and they seem to agree on that much.) The Globe article is a good summary, but I got the link wrong. Here’s the correct URL:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/08/7b_effort_to_disarm_ex_soviet_wmds_slows/
And here are some more excerpts:
It’s not only money–all the money in the world won’t solve Pakistan or North Korea. It’s also having one person in charge of this, and giving that person high enough rank to be listened to at NSC or cabinet meetings. It’s using serious diplomatic pressure, and convincing the rest of the world that this is in all of our best interests. It’s not cutting deals that let Abdul Khan (I think that’s his first name; I’m speaking about Pakistan’s top nuclear scientist) off the hook. etc. etc.
For some reason they won’t let me post the full URL to that Globe article so I’ll quit being lazy and link
Excellent points, Katherine. If we can spend ten billion right now and take all of that nuclear destruction out of play, I’m all for it. I’m not convinced that such activities obviate missile defense systems, but I’m a belt and suspenders kind of guy.
Ok, deal, just as long as I can soak the rich just a LITTLE so we can afford both. 🙂
(Note to Congress: see how easy this is?)
Heh. Hey, a measly ten billion? Pocket change for Bill Gates. And think of the goodwill he could cultivate…
An excellent article on the geopolitics of the situation.
As the United States races to erect a ballistic missile defense system by the end of the year, it is quietly enlisting Japan and other allies in Asia to take part in the network, which could reshape the balance of power in the region
Hehe. You said erect.
This could be one of the world’s more expensive erections.