If only cruise missiles would change the behavior of nations from war to deterrence, to vigilance, and to decisive and relatively bloodless preemptive attacks. Cruise missiles and stealth technology might change history, which has been dominated by leaders leading from the rear. If the Democrats in Congress knew Bin Laden or Iran would kill them before killing any American soldiers during this next year, I doubt they would be talking against war or in favor of Muslim immigrants.

Come to think of it, it would be better if our leaders receive no more protection than the least of us. Then maybe the leaders would get together and do more about the rampant violence in America and the rampant anti-Americanism abroad. Why should congressmen be behind armed guards, security clearances, concrete barriers, and metal detectors when the average person does not have the same protection? Only in a fundamentally injust society do politicians have such favored protections. Maybe we should respond to our outraged politicians with the same thing they would tell our luckless soldiers: “Well you volunteered.” I just don’t think any particular politician is nearly as valuable as he thinks he is.

From a technical standpoint, we are developing systems against SRBM’s and cruise missles.
The Navy already has the Standard Missle 2, which was designed to intercept anti-ship missles. Add the Aegis/Spy-1(a,b, d, or f) system for control and detection and it can cover a 40+ square mile area. The New SM-3 and SM-2 Block IV missles are designed for anti-ballistic capabilities.
The Air Force can always use E-3 AWACS or other AEW/C planes to detect cruise missles and vector in fighters. The new standard medium range missle, the AMRAAM is designed with anti-missle capabilities.
The weak point is the army. The Patriot system, while upgraded, is still not all that effective.
There are a number of other projects for ground based anti-missle capability. The US and Israel co-developed the Arrow-2, which was designed to take out short and intermediate ranged ballistic missles. The US and some EU countries are developing the MEADS to replace the Patriot and Hawk in anti-missle and anti-aircraft functions.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/index.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/bmd.htm
Of course no system is perfect and we cannot expect it to be. Our troops will always bee vulnerable when deployed. The same is true for civilians in the US.

Ron’s last point is the most worrying. Could terrorists, for example, fire a cruise missile with a chemical or biological warhead at a U.S. city from a ship a few hundred miles off the coast? What kind of defenses would we need against that?

If such possibilities exist, then expelling every Mideastern Moslem from America would not be a sufficient defense against terrorism. And further, in the light of the attack on a residential compound in Rihahd, we now know that Al Qaeda will not limit itself to high-profile symbolic targets. They are perfectly ready to carry out a mass murder of people in their homes.

The answer to Mr. Auster’s question is yes, and with a very low probability of intercept unless there just happened to be Navy surface combatants within range who correctly identified a threat, received clearance to engage in time and did so successfully. To defend against such threats would require surface to air missile systems with greater range and probability of kill than Patriot, along with a flexibility of doctrine that would allow them to be committed against targets that do not originate from identified hostile state threats (i.e., missiles launched from a tramp steamer, as opposed to a Chinese or Russian cruiser; our Moslem antagonists do not yet have warships).

Right now, there is neither the political will to spend the money nor the willingness to delegate the necessary authority to commanders. I do not believe the Bush administration is truly serious about homeland security, despite the latest bureaucratic behemoth. If the administration were serious, there would be cooperation with the investigation of what actually happened on September 11, 2001 and why, and the United States Army would be closing the Mexican border.

All that being said, expelling most Middle Eastern Moslems from the United States remains an element of a sufficient defense against terrorism. The utility of terrorism to terrorists is the extraordinary economy of force it provides them. Because there is no airtight defense against terrorist attacks yet citizens demand defense against terrorism, governments can be driven to vast expense and societies to vast inconvenience by even the threat of terrorism. When a government’s intelligence is flawed or its political priorities are skewed, there can be tremendous wasted effort with little net gain in security. That may be what we have today in the United States, with the administration’s focus on “nation-building” in the Middle East and its blindness about the threats exacerbated by its willful failure to enforce even the lax immigration laws we have. HRS

I’m in general agreement with Mr. Sutherland, except on his last point where he speaks dismissively of “nation-building” in the Mideast. Our fundamental purpose in Iraq is not to build a “democracy” for the sake of building a democracy. It is to ensure that Iraq have a stable government that is not controlled by terrorism supporters. If we were simply to pull out of Iraq now, as I suppose Mr. Sutherland would like us to do, the country would soon be taken over by our enemies, and thus become a base for terrorism.

I oppose as much as anyone the crusading democratist rhetoric employed by the U.S. But underneath that utopian rhetoric there is a realistic, national-security purpose. Now it’s quite possible that the whole thing may not be do-able, and that we may ultimately have to withdraw from Iraq without having permanently secured the country, or perhaps put our forces in a retracted position somewhere in the Middle East where we threaten to strike again at Iraq or any other country where Saddam or bin Laden re-gain power. But, one way or another, our purpose, as I see it, is not to spread a democratist empire but to destroy and prevent the arising of regimes that could assist in precisely the kind of attack on our shores that Mr. Sutherland and I both fear.

And in pursuit of that purpose, I am open to a consideration of every reasonable proposal, ranging from modernizing and democratizing the Moslem world, to crushing and demoralizing the Moslem world, to isolating and forming a cordon sanitaire around the Moslem world.

The problems of Iraq have been aired out with great expertise here, so I won’t dwell on them except to ask if there can be a single nation to build on the lands we now call Iraq. In its current configuration, Iraq was cobbled together by the British from three vilayets of the Ottoman Empire as part of its dismembering after the Treaty of Sèvres. There has never been any reason, other than British and French calculations of their interests in the post-Great War Middle East, for Iraq-qua-Iraq to exist.

Rather than try to pound the square peg of Western participatory democracy into the round hole of Iraq, a congeries of mutually hostile mostly Moslem Middle Easterners, perhaps we should look for ways to disengage ourselves from the internecine conflicts of the Middle East. I would suggest aggressively pursuing (in as conservationist a fashion as reasonably possible) alternative oil supplies and energy sources, removing our forces from bases in the region (the fleet can show the flag when needed, without relying on bases ashore that inflame the natives’ resentments) and pursuing intelligent immigration restrictions that will keep hostile Moslems out of the United States. Removing U.S. forces from Moslem lands removes a lot (not all - I appreciate the argument that we face a larger Moslem jihad aimed at subjecting the remnants of Christendom to sharia) of the incentive for Moslem terrorism directed at American targets, while border control keeps the would-be “martyrs” out. HRS

And see this: New Zealander says he is building a cruise missile in his garage.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/04/1054406219113.html

Regarding intercepting a cruise missle fired from a merchant ship, we would need an integrated air defence system in the US.
At the very least, we would need a few E-3 AWACS flying over the US coastline. According to Janes, their radar has a range of over 200 nm for low flying targets. Assuming a reasonable overlap, we would have one of these flying every 300 miles apart from Maine to Florida to Texas and San Diego to Seattle. That would take roughly 18 flying at any given time. I believe that we normally want to have 3 aircraft on the ground for every one on a 8 hour shift. We have 34 E-3’s in the entire US inventory. We do not have enough to seure our border. There are other aircraft with similar capabilities in the US inventory. The US nave E-2 has a less powerful radar. Our carrier groups normally have 4 each. We use P-3 Orions modified with the E-2’s radar for anti-drug and anti-smuggling work in the Gulf on Mexico. These could be upgraded.
However, we would still need to build another 40 planes for our border. I would hope that we would use more moder systems on these. Still, each costs over 300 million. We could also integrade UAVs like the Global Hawk with ground stations.
While the AWACS could provide detection and control for detection of missles, aircraft, and ships, we would still need interception. An Air National Guard sqadron could be attached to each station. That way we could have 2 F-16’s armed with AMRAAMs airborn at all times. This would be very expensive, but doable.
We could also arm the fighters with anti-ship missles to supplement the Navy and Coast Guard to protect against enemy ships.
I would like to see this built, but we are cost of 12+ billion to set up and high maintenance fees thereafter. I would consider it money well spent. If we integrate the data, we could control all ship and aircraft entering US space.

Let us remember that two men with a rifle were able to paralyze the Washington DC area last year. It even took time for the authorities to go in the direction the evidence pointed.

I have a few reponses to Howard’s latest post.
Howard is right, the contemporary state of Iraq is a colonial concoction, cobbled together from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. How about partition? In the north, give the Kurds their own state. The Kurds after all, were our eagerest Iraqi allies in the war, they should get their own state. Turkey and Iran won’t like it, but tough luck. Southern Iraq could be annexed to Jordan, under the proviso that Jordan open its borders to Palestinian refugees and grant them citizenship.
After this is done, the U.S. can begin the disengagement from the Middle East Howard suggested, made possible by a true energy independence. It just seems preposterous to me that the homeland of Thomas Edison and Bill Gates cannot commercially develop viable alternative energy sources.
All of this, would of course, be accompanied with drastic immigration reduction and an end to pandering to Islam. And, to top it all off, no more Ramadan in the White House.

One aspect of this potentially horrific situation that has not been addressed is the question of who exactly is supplying cruise missles and the attendant technology to groups like Al-Quaeda. Naturally, our supposed partner in the war on terrorism, China, has been implicated in the sale of all manner of military technology to states like Iran, cruise missiles included. The Bush administration has done nothing to stop the transfer of technology to the Chinese, who are all too willing to re-sell it to rogue states. The prospect of a US city being attacked with technology paid for by US taxpayers thanks to the self-serving greed of corporate types with the aid and assistance of the US political establishment proves that all the talk about protecting US security is just that - talk.

I think Carl’s statement is too sweeping. Let’s nail down the facts on what weapons technology we have sold to the Chinese, and what weapons technology China has sold to rogue states, before we conclude that all the talk about protecting US security is nothing but talk.

Perhaps I was too sweeping - more information is needed about what transfers have taken place. Nevertheless, we do know that GPS-based guidance systems were sold under Clinton during the Loral/Motorola debacle. In addition to refusing to prosecute Loral and Clinton for actions that clearly compromised US security, Bush has allowed the transfer of “smart bomb” technology. Unfortunately, there has been considerably less reporting on technology transfers after the events of 9-11-01, even from the conservative press. Even so, the programs set in place by Clinton to facilitate such transfers via the Commerce Dept. have been left in place by Bush & Co. Concerning cruise missiles, I did read an article about a year ago that described China’s development, using guidance technology obtained from the US, of a new class of cruise missiles capable of defeating the Phalanx system in place to guard US carrier groups.

The main point is that China has repeatedly demonstrated that it is quite willing to sell weaponry to terrorist states. Moreover, it would have been impossible for China to achieve the technological advances they have in the last decade without the assistance of US corporations like Motorola, Loral and Boeing who have basically bribed the leaders of both parties into a) effectively eliminating any restrictions on what can be sold; and b) allowing major espionage operations to go unpunished (Los Alamos, and the more recent FBI scandal). Coupled with the open border and multicultural madness, I have to wonder if there’s anyone in Washington who is really concerned with US security.

I hadn’t focussed on this issue in a long time (how much of your life can you spend gnashing your teeth about Clinton getting away with treason?), but what Carl is saying is very troubling. Perhaps Ron, who is knowledgeable on military technology, can give us further information on this.

Regarding the division of Iraq into 3 units, this would create a lot of instability. The last thing we need is to turn Iraq into Yugoslavia.
The ethnic groups in Iraq include not only Shia Arabs, Kurds, and Sunni Arabs, but also Turkmen, Chaldeans, and Assyrian Christians.

The areas the Kurds would want, including Kirkuk, have large Turkmeni minorities (in some towns pluralities). Add to this the implications of an independent Kurdistan for Turkey and Iran and you have continual violence. The The center region has both Sunnis and Christians. The Shia dominated south would be open to Iranian incursion.
The only two viable solutions are to keep a multi-national Iraq or to have a dictator do it for us.

Regarding missle technology, I am not aware of the scope of transfers of GPS technology to the ChiComs. Transfer of civilian grade GPS guidance was inevitable. The real question is whether the Chinese have access to military level GPS systems. These are more accurate and use a different frequency. The GPS data is also encypted.
If the ChiComs have access to this, they can launch more accurate GPS guided muntions.
There are two more troubling aspects.
1. The US is now dependant on china for certain rare-earth mineral components for GPS guidence systems. (I kid you not!)
Missile Technology Sent to China
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=357426
2. China is developing an alternate GPS system and satellite Galaxy to the US system. This would allow the ChiComs to destroy the US system, without damaging the Chinese ability.
The US would not attack the EU system.

Mr. Auster’s point about not letting Clinton’s escape drive us crazy is very apt. What’s more disturbing than Clinton to my mind are the Republicans who allowed him to get away with it or - even worse - might have actually been involved in the treasonous activity themselves (and therefore subject to blackmail). After all, Clinton left office in January 2001. There has been plenty of time to clean out the Commerce Dept., put and end to the technology transfer and shore up counter-intelligence against the Chinese. Why hasn’t this been done? It strikes me as being a top priority in terms of protecting US security, especially in light of China’s long-standing policy of selling advanced weaponry to terror-sponsoring states.

Ron - please correct me if I’m wrong about this - I seem to recall that one of the reasons the Loral/Motorola transfer was so bad was that it had, in fact, compromised the military GPS system. The Insight article on the Magnetech sale and transfer confirms my fears about the Bush administration’s position on this issue. The rare-earth magnets are being used to develop an advanced cruise missile, among other things. Allowing a Chinese company (ultimately controlled by the Chinese government) to take over a firm using such sensitive technology is really unconscionable.

I wanted to expand upon my previous comments before answering Carl.

For the last few years, the Europeans have been talking about creating their own GPS system. The goal is two-fold, to be independent from the US, and to allow civilians a more accurate position than provided by current civilian GPS systems based on the American satellites.
In late September, the Chinese joined this program
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/gps-03zc.html

Since the Chinese will be joiing the EU project, they know that their GPS system will never be attacked by the US.

Regarding Carl’s question,

Loral and Motorola both gave civilian GPS technology to the ChiComs. It is possible that Loral gave China the codes for US military GPS systems to allow them to launch Loral satellites more precisely. Loral also gave the Chinese the ability to launch multiple sattelites with one rocket. Loral may also have given China technical data on the construction of solid-fuel rockets, that can be fired more rapidly than their current liquid-fueled ones. The danger is that this technology transfer can be used not only for cruise missles, but also for ICBMs.
This has allowed the Chinese to possibly upgrade their 20 obsolete ICBM’s to carry multiple warheads. According to the Federation of American Scientists (hardly the most sanguine group) the Chinease missles can now carry 6 warheads each. Though they are smaller (100 Kiloton devices instead of 2 megaton devices) each Chinese missle can take out 6 west coast cities.
The Chinese are now building 3 classes of solid-fuel missles with multiple warheads. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/index.html

I would note that the Chinese have also purchased the experience of many Russian scientists.
China is also purchasing Russian cruise missles including the Klub (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/club.htm) and a number of anti-shipping cruise missles.

Welcome to the brave new world. What was once treason is business or foreign policy.
American companies sold weapons or dual-use technology to virtually all of our rivals and enemies. The British did the same.

American businesses are all too happy to make any sale and American polocy makers all too ready to believe that trade builds trust.

The Bush administration has been better than the Clinton administration, but not by much. PArt of it may be the number of Clinton-era appointees and careerists who have not been replaced. However, there is a pervasive naive ideology bolstered by corruption that has blinded the State Department for decades. Foggy Bottom is a quagmire for American interests.

Richard Poe has written about what military secrets impeached former “president” Bill Clinton ordered to be given to the ChiComs, most recently in a blog entry about three weeks ago:

http://www.richardpoe.com/blog_single.php?rowID=322

I just saw the 1970 movie “Tora! Tora! Tora!” about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. It shows Americans as being complacently obtuse and asleep as disaster approached. It reminded me of “A Night to Remember” (about the Titanic) as well as, of course, September 11th. What’s being said in this discussion about weapons technology sales to China makes me fear we are heading into another such sleep-induced disaster.