« Back and Thanks | Main | How Propaganda Works »
December 15, 2004
"Missile" "Defense" "Shield": Who's Kidding Who?
Here's a great example of how the administration is furthering its belligerent capacities under the pretext of concern for the safety of Americans: the so-called "missile defense shield" project.
If you had any questions about what this is all about, here's the kicker -- they don't even test this system in bad weather. In other words, it's guaranteed not to work in bad weather so they don't even try.
An attempt to launch an interceptor missile as part of the U.S. missile defence shield failed early Wednesday in the first test of the system in nearly two years.The Missile Defense Agency said the ground-based interceptor automatically shutdown "due to an unknown anomaly" shortly before it was to be launched from Kwajalein Atoll in the central Pacific Ocean.
...
In earlier tests, missile interceptors had a record of five-for-eight in hitting target missiles.Wednesday's test had been put off several times because of bad weather, and a malfunction of a recovery vessel not directly related to the equipment being tested, The Associated Press reported.
What on earth could there be use for a system that only works sporadically, and only under conditions of your of own choosing? Offense, of course, because you choose when to attack -- and, unlike defense, it's okay if only one out of your four offensive moves succeeed.
You see, we are developing the capacity to threaten strikes from space. That way, less worries about armies, occupations, foreign bases, military recruiting, etc. All those headaches that may potentially limit the scope their imperial ambitions.
I think this is a great example of the success of the propaganda system. Journalists keep repeating a "defense shield" is being developed, tested and somehow not performing well when a four year old child can figure out that this is clearly an offensive system.
The progressive critique has usually concentrated on the corporate boondoggle nature of such projects but I think that's also missing the mark. Not to say the money being made isn't a factor in these decisions, but the real issue is something much more serious and much more dangerous for the very existence of the planet.
Posted by zeynep at December 15, 2004 12:02 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.underthesamesun.org/mt-tb.cgi/341
Comments
OT, but perhaps this interests you:
On Friday, 16 Colombians will leave for Iraq with one-year contracts, renewable for six months," the source said. "In addition to the salary of $7000, vacations in Europe every three months and life insurance were offered," he said.(http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/578C567B-B957-47AE-9750-21731525419A.htm)
So it seems that the price for mercenaries is going up. What does this tell us about the situation? The market is never wrong...
Posted by: Motoko at December 15, 2004 12:34 PM
Five out of eight doesn't sound bad but even if one gets through imagine the enormous damage it would do especially if as is likely it contains a nuclear warhead. Some of the ealier tests involved more cheating than just launching on good weather days. For example, how about putting a beacon on the target missile that says "here I am come and get me."
Posted by: Ralph at December 15, 2004 12:54 PM
Not sure where you get five out of eight. EVERY ONE of those five "successes" was with KNOWN TRAJECTORIES of the target and/or beacons on the target. There has never been a SINGLE successful test of a more "real-world" scenario.
Zeynep's point, however, is valid regardless of this issue.
Posted by: Eli Stephens at December 15, 2004 01:09 PM
Boy am I gullible. It never occurred to me that the covert reason for this missile shield was to add to our offensive missile capability without the world knowing. The Pentagon is very crafty...
I'm sure the world DOES know and isn't buying the Pentagon's bullshit. Having read the headlines this weak, which report the Pentagon's new policy of lying about everything to confuse "the enemy," it doesn't surprise me that the "missile defense shield" is an obvious failure when IT COMES TO DEFENSE. The Pentagon never intended for it to work that way. The defensive capability of these missiles is a cover for their true intention: offensive attack.
I hate this bullshitting, lying government! Iran isn't the only one hiding their nukes.
Posted by: Ted at December 15, 2004 02:00 PM
I agree but I think the biggest success of the propaganda system is not that it presents an offensive weapon as a defensive one.
It's that this argument of defense can WORK in the first place. That it can convince people in the US that they NEED this sort of defense, that missile systems and new nuclear weapons are required to protect them from the armies of other countries!
From outside the US, this resembles some sick comedy. Who has been the country blatantly invading and occupying others? Who is the runaway leader in military spending and has the most technologically advanced army in the world, with a network of client states and junior partners such as Israel and the UK that are incomparably armed in their regions?
How can this country be portrayed to its own population as a victim and susceptible to an attack by North Korea or the might of Grenada's air force?
That's the real propaganda coup.
Of course, outside the US, we are often told that it is the threat of US imperialism that means our militaries should arm themselves to the teeth. Though the threat is perhaps more credible, the logic of course is not.
Posted by: pran at December 15, 2004 08:49 PM
Hm, interesting theory. But it fails the "never blame malice when simple incompetence would suffice" test. It just seems so tragically consistent that the Pentagon and contractors would sincerely want this thing and this is the best they can come up with. These are the same folk that brought us the Patriot system, the Bradley APC, and those planes that keep crashing that I can't remember off the top of my head.
Do you have any actual positive evidence to back up this idea? That is, not merely the lack of evidence for defensive purposes.
Posted by: Gerg at December 15, 2004 09:47 PM
Gerg, yes there is actually more evidence and arguments out there on why this is an offensive, first strike weapon. Mahajan's Full Spectrum Dominance had a detailed section on this topic and the other commenter, Pran, has posted a few good links to the subsequent post:
http://www.underthesamesun.org/content/2004/12/let_me_follow_u.html#comments
But my point isn't that just this example is enough to convince everyone it's an offensive system, but even just this should raise a lot of eyebrows and questions beyond the "incompetence" example. Yet it never does. Motives are never questioned. Facts do make it out there here and there and but the framework is always one of a benign administration that miscalculates, or makes mistakes, or, at worst, is too arrogant... It just stops there.
Posted by: zeynep at December 16, 2004 11:53 AM
Oh Lord.
I was going to comment that the American public would not allow a nuclear war to be fought in their name. But we're living thru the slaughter of innocents in Iraq on a proven lie, and many Americans are ok with this.
Much sorrow ahead, i'm afraid.
Posted by: meade at December 17, 2004 06:06 AM
From your comment:
my point isn't that just this example is enough to convince everyone it's an offensive system
From your article:
Journalists keep repeating a "defense shield" is being developed, tested and somehow not performing well when a four year old child can figure out that this is clearly an offensive system.
Posted by: Another Ted at December 17, 2004 01:05 PM
Obviously, the four year old would need some time and a little bit of help:-)
But, seriously, I think just the question of the weather should tip them that there is a serious problem with the claimed motive, defense. Perhaps the journalists need more information to confirm that this is not a defensive system and fill in the blanks but I think even in this little example they have what they need to ask a lot of serious questions and definitely stop claiming that it's merely defense...
Posted by: zeynep at December 18, 2004 10:19 PM