O comisie de cercetatori americani lucrand pentru National Research Council a concluzionat intr-un raport de 260 de pagini ca planul presedintelui Obama de a contracara rachete iraniene cu interceptori europeni (Deveselu) nu este efectiv in lipsa unor avansuri tehnologice. Comisia respectiva recomanda interceptori plasati pe teritoriul SUA.
Iata si cateva opinii despre acest raport venind dela cititorii ziarului New York Times, intr-un fel, elita civica a Statelor Unite.
SocratesDowntown Verona NJ
Beware of the military-industrial complex.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower - January 17, 1961
RobNew Mexico
This is a classic example of the military-industrial complex trying to frighten the American people and their leaders into spending tens of billions of dollars on weapons systems whose true purpose is to enrich the manufacturers of those systems. Are we really endangered by Iran? Is Iran the new Soviet Union? Rubbish! I hope that the president has the sense to reject this baloney and that he chooses to spend taxpayers' money on something that is actually useful.
TomSeattle, WA
Oh Good Grief! For 30 years, we have been stuck with this albatross, sinking more and more money into a program that has demonstrated consistent under-performance and outright failure. The simple, unvarnished truth is that it is always easier to develop tactics to fool the anti-missile defense system than to make the defense system foolproof. This was evident in 1983 (when Reagan delivered his infamous star wars speed) and still so today. At a time when we are debating the need for and cost of social welfare, the NRC panel has seen fit to recommend further welfare for the aerospace- military contractor sector. Let's stop this nonsense now!
SketcoCleveland, OH
Whew! Thank God we have a program that will help feed the starving defense industry.
E. BurkeNY
We all knew that the Republicans under Alzheimer's Ron were just creating a War Profiteer Boondoggle, and Huge Pork Program with this nonsense. It's How Reagan managed to TRIPLE The National Debt. Republicans ONLY HATE SPENDING when it Helps Americans, especially Poor Americans.
LanceCarmel, CA
The Star Wars Defense System, was created by a casual remark from Ronald Reagan while being given a tour of NORAD, the Air Force's military base. From an insane idea, it has morphed from one concept (it will shoot down Russian missiles) to another (we will expode a missile over our cities which will create a umbrella of protection protecting us from the next missile - I am not kidding) to endless other flights of fancy. President Clinton changed the name and kept the program. It is welfare for the military industry. Now, it has morphed once again to a missile defense system that would only protect us against Iran missiles. It will never work. This is fraud in the highest magnitude against the United States, all under the flag of patriotism. As a high ranking retired Navy Commander explained to me, "If a missile has a return address on it, we would wipe out the attacking country before they had the chance to launch another."
George APelham, NY
So why are the Irainian's launching a nuclear attack against the US? I thought they were attacking Israel first. Right after they launch that attack on Israel, theyll be back to the Stone Age, so we won't have to worry. This is why Mutually Assured Destruction works, and in this case, it's not even MAD, but Iran alone being obliterated! Of course, the logic is that the mullahs who run Iran are crazy and don't care that their centuries old culture, and all their power, will be destroyed. Of course, that's assuming that their long range missle and nuclear weapon all work as planned. Boy talk about pressure! Come on, this is a joke for the US to throw more money down a rat hole.
NANew York
"L. David Montague, the panel’s co-chairman and a retired president of Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space. The Pentagon must strengthen its technical analyses, he added, so it “can better evaluate new initiatives.”
This begs the questions: Does he still have a stake in Lockheed-Martin? How might he benefit financially if a President Romney carries through on his pledge to increase defense spending by $2.1 trillion? The article says it's "the first time that the research council ... has weighed in on the nation’s overall plans for defeating missile attacks." Why has it chosen to do so now, publicly, less than two months before a presidential election?
Bruce RozenblitKansas City
A rifle round travels at 1500 to 2000 miles per hour. An ICBM travels at 8000 miles per hour. If the interceptor is also traveling at 8000 mph, the two are closing in on each other at 16,000 mph or 23,500 feet per second. That leaves microseconds to make course corrections. The target is only 10 to 20 feet wide. Shooting down ICBM's is virtually impossible.
I don't know what our top secret technology is, but we don't have a vast array of space based (or ground based) energy beams that can knock down a large scale attack.
We might be able to knock down a few, but it only takes one that gets through to kill millions.
We can't make ourselves impregnable against this kind of attack. We are vulnerable. If Iran was so stupid to launch against us, there would be no more Iran. Many tens of millions would die within 20 minutes. That is an efficient military option.
Of course making peace and demilitarizing is another option.
JordanNew York
A system that doesn't work for a threat that doesn't exist, but we can't 5% of spending to cut from the budget.
The idea that a nation would launch a weapon at us with our unmatched retaliatory capacity is ridiculous.
glevyPickens, SC
Long range Iranian missiles? Will the be carrying them or mailing them. It sounds like the committee wants a Romney presidency. Elect the fool with absolutely no idea about the subject but believes the pentagon should have more money. What a joke!
AaronHouston, TX
While agreeing with Steve and with Rob, I must ask an additional question: Is no-one paying attention to the underlying message here? The US has been building, modifying and adding to for over 50 YEARS what should be the most unbelievably sophisticated and powerful missile systems in the world. The cost is probably immeasurable, not only in actual physical expenses to the MIC, but in programs under-funded or lost to our society. And yet...this article states that, at best, we can only guard against the most primitive arsenal put forth by N. Korea??!! That we are totally vulnerable to a missile program from Iran that is not even in its infancy??! What is wrong here?
How can we as a society continue to be so misguided by our own military and those who profit from it, financially and politically? When will we as a society finally say "Enough; this is enough!" This constant refrain that (China, Iran, NK, whomever) has this fantastically powerful and flawless capability to launch attacks while our own, bloated and over-blown, missile systems are totally flawed, is tiresome. We continue to believe that we need $20B aircraft to defeat "enemies" riding donkeys and carrying handheld weapons, spend more and more money rather than develop global solutions. The Communist bugaboo of the 1950's never goes away, and why should it? Look how good it has been for so many militarists and politicians to maintain their good fortune.
SteveFlorence OR
Sorry, We've seen this movie before.
Dr. Strangechaney And The Fear to End All Fears.
With the election coming up this is a predictable as slasher movies at Halloween. As long as there's money to be made you can count on sequel. The trailer line that's hard to equal is, "The new report looks ahead a decade or more to what it calls the “likely development” of Iranian missiles designed to rain warheads down on the United States."
Oh shudder!
jbok
Oh gee. Someday some country may have missiles like the ones we're stuffed with already. They might attack us.
So let's gut everybody in the nation, make the old and young destitute, cut off medical care, kill SSI, dump the unemployed, destroy demand and jobs,
and give the money to the military (and of course, tax cuts for the rich, which is never negotiable).
Otherwise, bad things might happen.
Thomas PayneCornelius, NC
Have we nat all grasped the truth that this "defense system" was more about padding some stock portfolios and providing some political bluster for those who pushed it off on the unsuspecting American taxpayers?
This IS Reagan's Star Wars crap? Right?
karlUSA
I've spent much of my career in missile defense. In my opinion these systems do us harm by giving us a false sense of security. At some point the President may be faced with the the uncertainty of a potential missile launch from Iran or N. Korea and he will ask "If they actually launch that at us, what are our prospects for shooting it down?" He could potentially put more reliance on this capability than is warranted. The technical challenges are a lot like putting a probe on mars. When it actually works as planned, it's an amazing near-miracle, and cause for celebration.
The only viable and cost-effective missile defense is either through diplomacy, bribery, or preemptive military action prevent unstable regimes such as those in Iran and N. Korea from obtaining WMD plus the delivery system.
DonNew York
Incredible! There has been actual proof of missile shields shear failure since Gulf War I. But we kept pouring BILLIONS into these programs because of lobbyists and their paid minions in Congress. We still pour billions into failed advanced fighter programs because according to Republicans if you cut those programs you're Anti-American.
PhilSan Anselmo, CA
We are and will forever be vulnerable. Get used to it. We were vulnerable to 'box cutters' on 9/11.
Maybe we should think about why so many people would want to attack us. We will never be able to build walls high enough to eliminate vulnerability. However, in a time of no jobs giving people(defense contractors) money to build a false sense of security seems politically ideal.
One thing about long range missiles is they are easily tracked to their launch pad. So supposing that Iran might fire a missile at us is insane unless we think they're willing to risk our normal overreaction in retaliation. Bombs will arrive as biological germs, in boats, as software etc. Protecting us w/missile shields is just a welfare program for grown up 'world of warcraft' boys.
AlanKC MONYT Pick
The best defense is a strong offense. MAD works and it has for over 60 years and counting.
PatFlorida
This is a trillion dollar joke on the US taxpayer. When Clinton took office he cancelled it. Bush II brought it back. The defense shield was tested. For it to work, the incoming missile had to have a radio emitter on it so the defense missiles could find it. Otherwise it missed it's target. Bush decided to not let out the results of the tests to the media anymore. It's just a defense contractor money trough. And somehow we are selling it to other countries. Or we are building it for them - hard to find the facts. We the taxpayers got totally ripped off on this one. And it too a 2 year study to find out it doesn't work well?
richard schumacherunited states
If Iran or a terrorist groups sends nuclear bombs they would most likely come via ship. Fat lot of good an antimissile defense would do then.
Steve BolgerNew York City
This whole program looks rather farcical in view of the submarines used to smuggle drugs into the US this host reported on just days ago.
BlancheSan Francisco
Shame on you NY Times for printing this on the front page on 9/11 another scare tactic to keep Americans awake at night.
I wont reiterate what has been said earlier in the comments that this report is from the military-industrial complex and should be viewed in that contexg.. And shame on the writers of this report and the timing of its publication.
Tony GloverNew York
This is rich. A study by military experts, including folks with connections to the industry, recommending we spend more on military. I would laugh, but I can't. The consequences are too serious.
Listen TomeWashington, DC
As a rational state, if the US had an effective ABM it would launch a nuclear attack on Russia and China so that they could never attack the US.
The US has also had some very irrational leaders. The generals recommended the use of nuclear weapons in both the Korean War and the Vietnam War. There are people in the pentagon right now whom do nothing all day but dream about how to launch a nuclear war.
Whatever happened to the SALT treaties, ABM treaty and disarmament? That would be the most rational thing for a sane people to do. Was it rational for President Bush, Jr. to unilaterally and illegally tear those treaties up without consulting Congress, our allies and cosignatories.
Why should Iran or anybody else keep their promises if we do not?
Iran only has imaginary nuclear weapons and imaginary ballistic missiles. Even if they did have them, and that is a big stretch, they could only launch a few nuclear bombs, which would be considered survivable by the Dr. Strangelove’s. But it would mean complete annihilation for Iran.
As for Iran they are a red herring for the ABM system.
gjames9142toronto, canada
Hey, it's only cost $200 billion so far. When it comes to defense, deficits don't matter.
tigumUpstate NY
Play the dirge for the "peace dividend." It was amazing how simple it's threat was stymied. Someone realized that dusting off the old speeches, replacing "communism" with "terrorism" was all that was necessary to address such a foolish notion of a US not armed to the teeth. We seem destined to continually build weapons systems that do not work and designed against unrealistic threats. Let's hope that the pentagon's view that cataclysmic war is unlikely is actually true. Oh well, I guess a "true American" is a profligate consumer and our government, as an extension of the system, should adopt the same posture. "O say can you see ..."
exmilpilotOrlando
Unfortunately, long range missile defense is all about politics and nothing about capability or praticability. There is little doubt that current systems have serious enough flaws that they can be useless in an attack by a technologically sophisticated foe. Right now Iran and North Korea have little chance of mounting that threat. The only reason that spending on long range missile defense continues is simple: if either the Republicans the Democrats proposed to cancell the program, they would be pummelled by the other side with "you're soft on defense" or " how dare you leave the US defenseless against the growing Iranian and North Korean threat". Those attacks would play well with much of the electorate, especially the ones who believe TV attack ads. No politician wants to take the chance of losing votes. So the ones who know better, pander to the ignorant ones.
Matt FLima, Peru
Funny that most of the experts on the panel would probably personally (financially) benefit by the recommendations.
DickTallahassee, FL
And the 'Drones' get smaller and smaller and their cargo fiercer and fiercer; Just keep sending dollars to the 'Military-Industrial Complex' and then the 'Drones' will get more and more dollars and the 'Military-Industrial Complex' will keep growing and spending.
There isn't a Military Solution: Try Diplomacy?
MitchPNY, NY
I'm sure we're just another $100-200 billion away from getting it right
bogglesthemindSouthern Humboldt, CA
~the nation’s protections against missile attack suffer from major shortcomings ...
What assurance do we have that a New & Improved system would not suffer from the same "shortcomings"? Will it not be designed and assembled by the same people that have given us the present flawed system?
Howard Thompsonla Quinta, caNYT Pick
In early 1960s I worked on the Army's ABM program researching the problem of discriminating the warhead from the decoys. We found that the defensive system could easily be made ineffective unless the intercept was made in the atmosphere-either in the initial or the final trajectory. The short time to fire the defensive weapon in either case made the decision to launch unacceptable.
Detection of the warheads outside of the atmosphere leaves unacceptable probabilities of success.
The Army came to this conclusion 40 years ago. Since then, we have only financed an interesting defense industries' research program which has wasted more than $200 billion.
Ethan BernardNew Haven, CT
ICBM defense is easily circumvented by deploying decoy targets in space along with the real warhead. This is why people call it "The Maginot line in the sky."
Alternatively, they can always smuggle the bomb in a bag of cocaine.
HarrySan Francisco
GIVE IT A REST! We have been hearing this for more than 50 years! Kennedy and his "Missile Gap"; Carter and his "Window of Vulnerability"! The Soviets were supposed to have had an impenetrable missile defense system. SO WE WERE TOLD. And a young punk named Mathias Rust, or something along those lines, got a wild hair up his butt and decided to take it to a test in his puny private plane, which he landed in Red Square. Notice that no Soviet missile system brought him down? FEAR FEAR FEAR PEOPLE. FOLLOW THE MONEY.
dfloyrArizona
Consider:
1. This summer we visited Louisburg in Nova Scotia. The French built huge fortifications aimed out to sea and across the mouth of the harbor to protect their rich fishing interests. The British troops landed elsewhere, marched inland, and attacked from the rear.
2. Before WWII the French built a heavily fortified Maginot Line. The Germans simply attacked through Belgium and collapsed the French from the rear.
This missile defense is just another similar deeply flawed "targeted" defense. An enemy determined to hit us with their small number of missiles need only load them aboard ships and send the ships to somewhere south of Bermuda, into the Caribbean, or perhaps some spot in the Pacific south of Los Angeles. Launched from there, this whole expensive defense system would be useless .
JohnVirginia
"The study was funded by the Missile Defense Agency"
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-09/naos-rrc091112.php
gcolumbus
I like that it's scientist but when you see their credentials seems like they work for the military industrial complex. Kind of like asking the oil gas and coal for their report on global warming. Or hiring Haliburton to rebuild Iraq. How effective is this kind of protection when you look at what one determined individual can do. Maybe what we need to do is try to talk out some of are problems work out solutions that are good for the many. Well I better get back to my Fox news so I can get the real scoop fair and balanced. Things have changed the threat is bigger but it is more individualized. The best solution can be found when everyone has something to lose.
FrankMiami
So we should spend billion of dollars in missile defense to protect the U.S. against Iran? Not against Russia or China or Pakistan or North Korea, but Iran! It makes me wonder about the objectivity of the article and who's paying the author's take to write it.
Sept. 11, 2012 at 9:56 p.m.RECOMMENDED11
Chris GBoston area, MA
I've gotta say, I'm not too concerned about Iran (deliberately) launching a first strike. Call it the half-MAD principle: If they launch a first strike then we incinerate them with our retaliatory strike. End of story.
Iran may (does) have a vile set of leaders but I'm confident that they have a sufficiently well-developed sense of self-preservation that they're not fool enough to try to nuke us.
inmytaxiMinneapolis
Long range missiles are not the type of threat we face today ... they're an old style USSR type threat. The threat we face today is a nuke delivered slowly, say on a boat, into a US harbor, say NYC.
Long range missiles are designed for surprise to destroy retaliatory strikes. No one can prevent a retaliatory strike. Thus, the threat is nukes delivered any way possible, and the money spent on anti missile defense is better spent on strengthening port security.
Marvin R. MorrisonDenver Colorado
And this Panel studied he problem for 2 years but released its findings just before the coming elections - I wonder why such exquisite timing?
M R Morrison
Denver
jackcbnj
We have more than enough nukes to turn Iran and North Korea and anyone else who wants to bring it on into radioactive sheets of glass. That's the beauty of nukes - no one gets out alive. In the 60 years since Russia and Great Britain joined the club there has never been a bomb exploded in anger. MAD works. Diplomacy works. A country getting their first nukes soon realizes that they can't use them; it's Self Assured Destruction.
Joe TNJ
Wow! Perfect pre-election timing. I wonder if the committee coordinated with Netanyahu to deliver a 9/11 one-two punch.
If not, it is one heck of a coincidence.
In any event this may be a preamble to a certain "October surprise".
Listen TomeWashington, DC
What this article fails to mention is that President George Bush Jr. tore up the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia.
The ABM treaty made nuclear war less likely because if any country has an effective ABM system it will be tempted to make a first strike nuclear attack. One country cannot increase its defenses without weakening the defenses of another country.
The idea that the ABM system is to protect against Iran is not logical. Iran would not have the capability to threaten the US for decades if ever.
It is really Russia that the US is concerned about.
The Bush Doctrine of attacking any country that poses a threat and an ABM system gives Russia real reasons for concern about a first strike from the US. Thus if the Russians feel a real threat they may gamble on a first strike against the US.
Continuing with an ABM system is a disaster for the world.
bronco billyMT
The insanely massive Security Industrial Complex SIC(K) has driven the country to the brink of bankruptsy. The parasites have consumed the host. SICkening indeed...
Steve SingerChicago
Definition of "anti-missile defense system":
1. mission impossible, and supreme folly for being that;
2. unachievable at any cost;
3. a stupendous, colossal, bankrupting waste of irreplaceable fiscal resources;
just like our Iraq, Afghan and Southeast Asia/Vietnam catastrophes were.
It never ends. Our elected politicians simply cannot say "No!" to the latest pork-larded MIC boondoggle. They are either spineless handout-takers, simply refuse to think for themselves, or they refuse to learn from history, especially from past mistakes; why they condemn the rest of us to repeat them and pay for them again.
Again, and again, and again.
Capt. PennySilicon Valley
This is the definition of national insecurity.
No matter how much we spend we remain frightened.
There is no possible military solution. A psychological or psychiatric approach is the only solution.
mobocracyminneapolis
It probably makes sense to do some research into missle defense, if only as an adjunct to development of missle offense development, so you know what kind of defenses you're up against. However, actual interception systems remain extremely complicated even for short-range missles requiring precise targeting (ie, anti-ship missles) and likely impossible for long-range missles until/unless we develop some kind of energy weapon with a fast response time and near-zero on-target latency.
What makes more sense as a missle defense system is a publicly stated philosophy of massive, disproportional response, with all weapons (aka nuclear) on the table. If the President goes on TV and warns our "enemies" (PRK, Iran principally) that we can track their missles and that an attack on us will result "in destruction and suffering unseen since Hamburg, Tokyo, Dresden or Hiroshima" they will get the idea that there's really no way to win because any attack will result in civilization-ending counter-attacks.
Even the looniest in Iran or PRK aren't willing to see their largest cities literally burned to the ground and the local demographic and economic clock set back 1000 years. It might be martyrdom to some, but it's too much of a loss for most.
BCCanada
A few people have suggested that MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) is the appropriate defence strategy. Please keep in mind that a central tenet behind MAD is that you are dealing with rational states, in the sense that the powers behind those states are not willing to risk their own destruction or the deaths of their citizens. This was thought to be true of Russia. Is it true of Iran? North Korea?
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu