To Democrats, led by Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., years of lavish spending on poor-performing, ill-conceived programs is being brought under control.
Tauscher, who is chairman of the Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, insisted that, "No one has validated the number 44. No one could tell us the rationale for 44" interceptors versus 30.
She said the plan to build 44 silos was set sometime after 2002 during years that the Missile Defense Agency was free to operate with few checks from the Republican administration and the Republican-controlled Congress.
Under Tauscher's leadership for three years, the subcommittee has shifted the emphasis from ground-based interceptors intended to protect against intercontinental ballistic missiles to mobile- and ship-based interceptors intended to counter medium-range missiles.
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., said Alaska's extra missile interceptors are strategically unimportant, but money should be spent on them anyway.
"Neither Iran nor North Korea will launch from their soil against us," Bartlett said. Missiles launched from those countries could be traced immediately and two things would probably happen: The United States would shoot down the missile, Bartlett said, and then the U.S. would "vaporize" the attacking country.
If either country attacks, it will be with a nuclear weapon smuggled into the United States, he said. Congress should be spending money to improve defenses along U.S. coasts, he said.
But the amount needed to finish building the 14 silos is $120 million. Having spent $780 billion on an economic stimulus bill to create jobs, spending $120 million on missile defense that will preserve thousands of jobs is "a trivial amount of money," Bartlett said.
The Democrats disagreed.
With North Korea’s unstable regime, aided and abetted by the embattled Iranian Regime, a launch on the 4th (symbolic), is probable – and at this point, although Japanese Intelligence has Hawaii as the target (also symbolic), the current (assumed) range of North Korea’s missiles put Guam and Alaska at close range - therefore, missile interceptors on the mainland are now critical to the nation’s defense. Although Hawaii is symbolic (Pearl Harbor), Alaska would, rationally, be the more strategic target – the large oil and natural gas reserves alone would decimate the U.S. economy if disrupted.
An excellent treatment on the strategic import of Alaska’s missile defense capabilities and the threat of the Iranian backed North Korean Nuclear program, can be found here at Cutting Edge News.
Today, Riki Ellison, Chairman and Founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance (MDAA), announced that Gates had reversed his previous decision not to use the nations full capabilities to defend Hawaii.
"Last week, the United States Combat Commander for the Pacific, Admiral Timothy Keating (PACOM) and Northern Command General Victor Renuart (NORTHCOM) put forth a request to defend the United States and their areas of responsibility, most notably Hawaii from a North Korean long range ballistic missile, this request comes after the North Korean government threatened to launch a No Dong 2 missile in the direction of Hawaii."
"This military request has been approved by President Obama and the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates and efforts are under way to prepare United States missile defense assets and deployments to defend Hawaii against a successful long range ballistic missile test that may take place within the next few weeks from North Korea."
"The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General James "Hoss" Cartwright testified before the United States Senate last week and when questioned if the President asked Congress of the likelihood of a successful shoot down of a rogue launch, he stated, '90 percent-plus.'"
Note to Rep. Ellen Tauscher: One might want to take one's chances - 14 Silos, 120 Million Dollars, Alaska, Guam and Hawaii – priceless.
No comments:
Post a Comment