I don't know which is more distressing, the intentionally misleading comments in the House of Commons and the House and Senate defence committees, or the hopelessly poor quality of the questions posed by most of the committee members (Bloc and NDP excepted) and the inept performances of the two committee chairmen. ("What's so sacred about weapons in space?" says Liberal Senate Chairman Colin Kenny).
If I had the time, I could write a small book on the misleading nature of the testimony of James Wright, assistant deputy minister for global and security policy at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and apparantly the person "leading the discussions on Canadian participation in the program with the U.S."
However, the purpose of this memo is to zero in on a small sample of David Pratt's testimony to the Senate Defence Committee on April Fool's Day.
Pratt stressed how five of the last eight interceptor tests were successful, that the tests have become increasingly more sophisticated involving decoys to fool the interceptor missiles and how successful the last test was.
Garbage. Either he is very poorly briefed or he is intentionally lying to the committee, or maybe it's both.
The most recent test which Pratt claimed was a success, did not result in an intercept. The kill vehicle interceptor and booster rocket failed to even separate.
ALL the other tests have been rigged. None of the decoys have been designed to fool the interceptor. Some have actually served as a "beacon" to assist the kill vehicle in locating the warhead. Dr. Lisbeth Gronlund is the Co-Director and Senior Scientist, Global Security Program, Union of Concerned Scientists in the U.S. Here is a small sample of her recent comments to me re Pratt's testimony:
The interceptor advance has been provided with a detailed set of a-priori information about the trajectory and appearance of the objects that are to be targets, including the warheads and the decoys, plus detailed information about flight plans and characterist- ics. The interceptor is provided with information re the exact position of the mock warhead using a GPS receiver or a C-band beacon located on the warhead. Flight tests planned through to the fall of 2007 "are not designed to address the challenge of countermeasures that have been identified as simple for an enemy to implement." The tests "have not demonstrated realistic engagement conditions and have essentially been repeats of previous tests with identical engagement conditions, same time of day, same weather conditions, same intercept geometry, same fly-out range, same altitude of intercept etc.
In this I have only touched on some of the nonsense coming from Pratt and Graham and their officials. There is MUCH MUCH more. A main theme in my book is that the Bush/Rumsfeld/ Pentagon NMD won't work, and isn't about the defence of the U.S., but rather the intention of the U.S. to develop a first-strike weaponization of space capacity intended to "fight future wars from and through space", to "dominate space" and "deny others the use of space", to put nuclear weapons and powerful space-to-ground "Rods of God" and lasers in space, etc.
Both Pratt and Graham know this or somehow claim not to know it. The Russians and Chinese know it very well, hence we're already in another massive arms race with terribly dangerous ramifications for an apocalyptic nuclear confrontation. So says the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. So says the head of the United Nations. So says the mayor of Hiroshima and I elaborate on this in my book.
Amazingly, almost all of the media in Canada are fast asleep on this. Only David Pugliese of the Citizen has a good grasp on what is happening, and how Canadians are being misled by Martin, Graham and Pratt. Pretty sad.
Mel Hurtig
Stumble It!
And what's wrong with a DEFENCE system anyway? A little history lesson for you - during the Cold War the U.S. and U.S.S.R settled on the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), at the time there was no defence against missile attacks so both sides had to accept total destruction if they launched, so they didn't launch. That worked then because except for the U.K. France and China, stable countries, nuclear missiles were too expensive and technical for your average brutal dictatorship. Accords and agreements had to work if the alternative was destruction and luckily for us they did.
Today however, missile and nuclear technology are much cheaper and easier to come by and it would be irresponsible for the leader of the U.S. not to try and protect the citizens of that country.
When the foreign minister of Iran states that the first thing they will do once they develop a nuclear missile is attack Israel, even if he only said that out of some kind of anger or frustration rather than a policy statement, governments must take notice and try to protect their people from such threats.
"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato
As far as I'm concerned there is no stopping these terrorist with more war crimes, or war approaches. There has to be another way for peace. I don't think the U.S knows of any other way then to just fight.
Kevin
Why is now a good time to go to Mars? When the entire planet is living in fear because of wars, wars which have led to more terror, we are living and dying because of the destruction to the planet, not enough medication and healthcare for many, not enough food for many? What does putting a war machine in space do for the little kid who is going to sleep hungry, sick and cold, because their parents are dead?
It would be like me telling my starving kids that I am going to build a huge fence around our property to keep them safe, using all the money I have to do it, sorry about the food kids but at least you will be safe!
---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?
A leader that starts wars, and puts the safety of his citizens in jeopardy has made the most irresponsible move possible.
I can also understand Iran wanting nuclear weapons. That's how arms races work. Israel would love for the US to attack Iran next. Israel has nuclear weapons of its own. In that instance as the leader of Iran looking to protect his citizens, I may just want nuclear weapons. See what we're talking about here? No one really wants to see Iran get nuclear weapons. Just as we here don't really want to see the US develop a missle defense system. Neither one of these countries achieving what they want will make the world or the US safer.
If its technology you want developed then take all those brains and dollars and figure out a way in which all the citizens on the planet can survive without oil and gas. Or without clean water or clean air. Develop some attractive fashionwear for a poisoned planet.