Taxpayers would like to know what happened to the $10.7 billion dollars that they spent this year on missile defense (I'm in for about $100, I'd estimate). And we'd like to know why it was so important that you
revoked the 1972 Anti-Ballistic-Missile Treaty.
Don't get me wrong. It's nice to know that you declared in your weekly radio address that you would propose to spend $3 billion every year to fight AIDS in the world. I'm sure that $3 billion will go a long way.
But, anyway, back to this missile defense thing...
I remember when the first tests were run right after Bush got into office in 2001. It was all that the White House could talk about. It didn't matter that all the tests were complete failures. It was money well spent.
Rumsfeld said on August 19th that he is waiting for a "final assessment about the system's readiness to begin operations" (The Washington Post. Aug 19, 2004. pg. A.07.) yet all accounts are that the system today has only a 20% potential hit capability.
How long must we continue to hand our money over to the either self-deluded or intentionally misleading hands of Raytheon and similar corporations?
From Raytheon's 2003 Annual Report:
Raytheon is proud to be a major partner in MISSILE DEFENSE, which requires superior performance and teamwork to guard effectively against missile attack. Raytheon is a partner with the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and other companies in all three phases of the missile defense system - boost, midcourse defense and terminal defense. In the boost phase, Raytheon plays a key role in the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) program [$4 billion contract in 2003 -ed.], developing the kill vehicle and technology to integrate it with the interceptor. The company is a leader in the development and deployment of kinetic vehicles for midcourse defense, including the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle. In all three phases of missile defense, Raytheon radars play a key role in surveillance, target tracking, discrimination and communication with interceptor missiles and kinetic vehicles.
I'm sure that the "Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle" is maybe more effective than an H2 Hummer, but I really must object to this upbeat science-fiction inspired rhetoric that flies in the face of what is really a complete failure.
Even if it were possible to make it work, to think about the ramifications of the "success" of the project is only to be frightened about what kind of future arms race it would engender. Of course by the time another country developed their own MDS, we would have missiles that would know the trick to out-maneuvering it. Instead of ending proliferation, it merely raises the stakes.
And in a world where suitcase or cargo bombs are a more likely scenario for attack, well, I just don't know what to say. How much do we intend to spend on port security in 2005, Mr. Bush? What's that you say? $6.3 billion? Maybe we could do away with missile defense then, and spend $17 billion ($10.7b + $6.3b) on port security? Maybe? Please?