Today's Article
'The type of missile
defense the U.S. and
NATO are planning is
particularly easy to
defeat,' recently
stated an independent
nuclear physicist.
defense the U.S. and
NATO are planning is
particularly easy to
defeat,' recently
stated an independent
nuclear physicist.
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Taxpayer Billions Spent On Non-Working Defense Systems
By Cliff Montgomery - Nov. 6th, 2011
“Last week marked the two-year anniversary of President Obama’s announcement of what was to be a radical
new approach to missile defense — the Phased Adaptive Approach [PAA],” declared Yousaf Butt, a nuclear
physicist, in an opinion piece which The New York Times published in September.
Butt also is a scientific consultant for the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), an “organization [which
performs]...critical work [on issues]...at the intersection of applied science and security,” according to an FAS
self-description found on its website.
The Obama plan seems simple enough. “The United States, working with NATO, would ramp up the
deployment of a mix of increasingly sophisticated sea- and land-based missile interceptors around Europe,”
stated the Times article, “in an attempt to guard against future Iranian missiles.”
But there may be one little snag.
“Unfortunately...[the Obama plan] will lead to more nuclear weapons and a more dangerous world.
“The main problem is that the type of missile defense the United States and NATO are planning is particularly
easy to defeat,” stated Butt in the Times.
“The simplest countermeasures are cheap inflatable balloon decoys,” he added.
“Because the missile defense interceptors try to strike the missile warheads in the vacuum of space,” Butt
continued, “these balloons and any warheads would travel together, making it impossible to tell them apart.”
“An enemy bent on delivering a nuclear payload to the United States,” stated Butt, “could inflate many such
balloons near the warhead and overwhelm the defense system by swamping it with fake signals.”
“The latest tests of both the ground-based and sea-based missile defense systems have failed — and these
were essentially rigged tests,” he pointed out, “where the intercept team knew the precise timing and trajectory
of the incoming missile.”
Obama’s apparently useless endeavor will be a massive action.
“According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the planned PAA calls for more than 500 SM-3
interceptors based on 43 ships and two land sites in Europe by 2018,” Butt stated elsewhere in an informative
FAS study on the subject, which he penned with Theodore Postol.
The Obama plan has as its basis “the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) program, which is carried out by
the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the Navy, and gives Navy Aegis cruisers and destroyers a capability for
conducting BMD operations,” states a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report published in April.
And it’s an expensive war measure.
“The Aegis BMD program is funded mostly through MDA’s budget. The Navy’s budget provides additional
funding for BMD-related efforts,” continues the CRS study.
“MDA’s proposed FY2012 budget requests a total of $2,380.3 million [$2.38 Billion] in procurement and
research and development funding for Aegis BMD efforts,” stated the report.
Now Americans are told their country can’t afford decent schools, decently-paid teachers, actual jobs, roads or
health care. So how is it that we can afford a multi-billion dollar action which independent experts insist simply
doesn’t work?
It seems the American establishment’s problem is not a lack of money, but a lack of simple common sense.
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
By Cliff Montgomery - Nov. 6th, 2011
“Last week marked the two-year anniversary of President Obama’s announcement of what was to be a radical
new approach to missile defense — the Phased Adaptive Approach [PAA],” declared Yousaf Butt, a nuclear
physicist, in an opinion piece which The New York Times published in September.
Butt also is a scientific consultant for the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), an “organization [which
performs]...critical work [on issues]...at the intersection of applied science and security,” according to an FAS
self-description found on its website.
The Obama plan seems simple enough. “The United States, working with NATO, would ramp up the
deployment of a mix of increasingly sophisticated sea- and land-based missile interceptors around Europe,”
stated the Times article, “in an attempt to guard against future Iranian missiles.”
But there may be one little snag.
“Unfortunately...[the Obama plan] will lead to more nuclear weapons and a more dangerous world.
“The main problem is that the type of missile defense the United States and NATO are planning is particularly
easy to defeat,” stated Butt in the Times.
“The simplest countermeasures are cheap inflatable balloon decoys,” he added.
“Because the missile defense interceptors try to strike the missile warheads in the vacuum of space,” Butt
continued, “these balloons and any warheads would travel together, making it impossible to tell them apart.”
“An enemy bent on delivering a nuclear payload to the United States,” stated Butt, “could inflate many such
balloons near the warhead and overwhelm the defense system by swamping it with fake signals.”
“The latest tests of both the ground-based and sea-based missile defense systems have failed — and these
were essentially rigged tests,” he pointed out, “where the intercept team knew the precise timing and trajectory
of the incoming missile.”
Obama’s apparently useless endeavor will be a massive action.
“According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the planned PAA calls for more than 500 SM-3
interceptors based on 43 ships and two land sites in Europe by 2018,” Butt stated elsewhere in an informative
FAS study on the subject, which he penned with Theodore Postol.
The Obama plan has as its basis “the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) program, which is carried out by
the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the Navy, and gives Navy Aegis cruisers and destroyers a capability for
conducting BMD operations,” states a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report published in April.
And it’s an expensive war measure.
“The Aegis BMD program is funded mostly through MDA’s budget. The Navy’s budget provides additional
funding for BMD-related efforts,” continues the CRS study.
“MDA’s proposed FY2012 budget requests a total of $2,380.3 million [$2.38 Billion] in procurement and
research and development funding for Aegis BMD efforts,” stated the report.
Now Americans are told their country can’t afford decent schools, decently-paid teachers, actual jobs, roads or
health care. So how is it that we can afford a multi-billion dollar action which independent experts insist simply
doesn’t work?
It seems the American establishment’s problem is not a lack of money, but a lack of simple common sense.
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
Wait, why does an
independent news source
run advertisements? The
Spark answers in its
advertising policy.
independent news source
run advertisements? The
Spark answers in its
advertising policy.
* Please check out our ads--they
help keep this news site running.
Thanks!
help keep this news site running.
Thanks!