#71 - 20th Century Defense

President Bush defended his pursuit of a costly missile defense system on Tuesday and said those who oppose the idea do not understand the dangers the country faces in the 21st century.

[. . .]

Bush said a system to shoot down any incoming missiles armed with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons is needed to defend the country.

"We want to continue to perfect this system, so we say to those tyrants who believe they can blackmail America and the free world: 'You fire, we're going to shoot it down."'

Bush said those who oppose the system "really don't understand the threats of the 21st century. They're living in the past." (Reuters)

1) "Continue to perfect" implies that the system is effective. It isn't. And with Bush's plan it's ineffective to the tune of about $50 billion over the next five years.

2) "So we say to those tyrants who believe they can blackmail America and the free world: 'You fire, we're going to shoot it down'" - even a White House news release stops short of that kind of reckless bravado:

Missile Defense: The United States will soon begin the operational deployment of an initial capability to defend against long-range ballistic missiles from rogue states such as North Korea. While this initially will be a limited capability, it will provide a basis for improvements as the threats and technologies evolve.

Maybe Bush should hold off on his "You fire" version of diplomacy until then.

3) Those who oppose the system "really don't understand the threats of the 21st century" - the mind boggles. Long range missile defense of the type Bush is touting was Reagan's baby in the '80s, as in the 1980s, as in the 20th century. It would have done nothing to prevent the attacks on September 11th, 2001. It would do nothing to protect us from chemical, biological, or nuclear device smuggled into this country.

There are better ways to spend 50 billion dollars.