![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
from http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm
Missile defense Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld took a jab at critics of U.S. missile defense efforts during a speech last week in Huntsville, Ala. When he joined a commission on ballistic missile threats in 1998, "I was stunned by how theological the missile defense debate had become. It was really a hair knot," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "Everyone felt something very, very strongly about it. Even the proponents disagreed very strongly. And the opponents disagreed very strongly. And things were pretty much on dead center as a result of it. It was a shame." Mr. Rumsfeld said President Bush ended the impasse by junking the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. He noted that two years after Mr. Bush announced the decision to finally deploy a missile defense system, "in the past few weeks, the first interceptor has been put in place in Fort Greeley, Alaska," and that "by the end of this year we expect to have a limited operational capability against incoming ballistic missiles." Mr. Rumsfeld said the initial deployment represents "the triumph of hope and vision over pessimism and skepticism." The deployment probably is "somewhat of a disappointment for those who were convinced it would fail," he said. He noted his cordial discussions days earlier with Russian officials on missile defense and said that critics, primarily liberal weapons-control advocates, who think U.S. missile defenses would be destabilizing were wrong. "The sky-is-falling group was wrong. The sky did not fall. It's still up there." Mr. Rumsfeld also was asked about the danger of terrorists or rogue states attacking the United States by putting a short-range Scud-type missile on a freighter and firing it close to U.S. shores. He said one Middle East nation already has "launched a ballistic missile from a cargo vessel." "They had taken a short-range, probably Scud missile, put it on a transporter-erector launcher, lowered it in, taken the vessel out into the water, peeled back the top, erected it, fired it, lowered it, covered it up. And the ship that they used was using a radar and electronic equipment that was no different than 50, 60, 100 other ships operating in the immediate area." Other U.S. officials have said the nation was Iran, which tested a freighter-launched missile in the Caspian Sea in the late 1990s. "It is true that the big distinction we make between intercontinental, medium-range and shorter-range ballistic missiles doesn't make a lot of sense if you're going to move the missile closer to the target," he said. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What is missile defense? An expensive fraud Bush needs Poland as a future nuclear battlefield | Paul J. Adam | Military Aviation | 1 | August 9th 04 08:29 PM |
Showstoppers (long, but interesting questions raised) | Anonymous Spamless | Military Aviation | 0 | April 21st 04 05:09 AM |
"Missile Defense for the 21st Century" | Mike | Military Aviation | 0 | March 8th 04 08:35 PM |
Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 0 | December 7th 03 08:20 PM |
Airborne ballistic missile defense? | Henry J. Cobb | Military Aviation | 1 | August 20th 03 09:17 AM |