Powered by TypePad

« It's 8:45 AM - Do You Know Where Your Talking Points Are? | Main | Michael Steele »

March 12, 2009



Right, swat flies; forget the plague of locusts.


Hummm an Obama Administration beard to kill missile defense which works by saying he supports missile defense, but a system which doesn't exist yet.

A bit like Obama supporting energy production, but only fake energy production from wind and solar, and using all means to prevent real energy production.


It's a great idea if you're sure they are a threat early in their flight.

The best tack for the Iranians and Koreans is to launch a bunch of satellites and wait till the personal manning the drones have been "wolf-ed out" (boy who cried "Wolf"). It's the old "decoy" ploy.

For this simple reason, it is necessary to intercept during the re-entry or descending portion of the flight, when the actual target, if there is one, can be clearly determined.

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

That is a slick implementation of the shoot on launch idea.

Except that the greatest threat to us is a ship born, medium range launch of an EMP weapon.
When it comes, they're not going to launch from their own landmass.


uh oh - FBI has raided Obama's technology office.

Charlie (Colorado)

Even better is a multi-layer defense. This is a cool idea, although it's also vulnerable to both intelligence-based attacks (what if someone leaks the positions of the UAVs?) and technological attacks (what happens if someone beats the stealth? Say with long-infrared or interferometry?)

But what's interesting here is that we've gone from "missile defense is inherently unworkable, impossibly complicated, and destabilizing" to "missile defense is inherently unworkable, impossibly complicated, and destabilizing, and my system is better."

Charlie (Colorado)


Charlie (Colorado)

Try again.

But what's interesting here is that we've gone from "missile defense is inherently unworkable, impossibly complicated, and destabilizing" to "missile defense is inherently unworkable, impossibly complicated, and destabilizing, and my system is better."

Charlie (Colorado)

uh oh - FBI has raided Obama's technology office.

Actually, raided the office of the CTO for the District of Columbia. It just happens that's the new Obama CTO. Or was.

hit and run

3 strikes and you're out

But at least you went down swinging.


uh oh - FBI has raided Obama's technology office


Jake Tapper tweeted this not too long ago:

truly weird way to start a 40th bday -- FBI agents raiding the home of a neighbor & arresting him! kids carted away by grandma, etc. awful.

One hour ago according to his tweet. Wonder if there is a connection.


I wonder if Tapper thought they were coming for him.

Crushing dissent is the highest form of patriotism.


Okay - I stand corrected, the guy arrested is not the Obama appointee per Jake Tapper.

The boss of the guy arrested is now working for the O administration.

Still it is weird.


Who needs missile defense if your adversary is simply making a space launch?


Today is Jake Tapper's 40th birthday?


This FBI raid is starting to look like a pay for play scandal. Two people apparently were arrested this morning, one was the DC contracting officer for that branch of the DC government, and the other was the head of a company that got a 350K contract from the city. The Obama appointee was the head of the office when the contract was awarded.


Well well well, pay to play, who would have thought it.

Now let's see how it's reported.


Besides the CIO, Pritzker, Geithner, Richardson, Freeman, the trade representative, Daschle, the labor secretary, Zinni, Gregg, the surgeon general, and the "Chief Performance Officer", I can't think of a single stumble in Obama's nominations.

Unless you have a problem with putting a woman who owes her 8-figure fortune to foreigners in charge of State, or giving Justice to a guy who whitewashes terrorists, or having Joe Biden a heartbeat away.

hit and run

Today is Jake Tapper's 40th birthday?

Yep. Hey MayBee, I hope you've wished your boyfriend a happy birthday.

And speaking of which, I know it's not today, but it was in the not too distant past and yet you let it pass without so much as letting us know. Shame on you for depriving JOM of one of our favorite activities...

So it is with great fondness and adoration that I wish you belatedly by several weeks:


Last year http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2008/04/rocky-was-just.html?cid=109609180#comment-109609180>we were way off, this year we're getting closer.

Next year, you cannot hide.


You see why I think that incompetence is the watchword for Obama. Were it the Three Musketeers instead of the Three Stooges, there would be an organization in place on Day One, and at least appearing to be running the show by now. Instead, we've got infighting and invisibility. And tremendous hypocrisy from Obama. Did you catch him sternly reminding the nation that 'next time' there will be accountability about earmarks? What a joke.


How better to underline his powerlessness? All he had to do was announce a veto, and send it back. Even if it were minimally re-worked he could have both cemented his image and sent a message. Instead he whines about doing better next time. As if.


So what's with the cross outs?

And Happy Birthday Maybee!


Oh Great! Zero is about to declare war on Mexico; now there's a distraction.

Warning; slight hyperbole alert. He is considering deploying the National Guard to the border to quell drug war violence. Now where's Chas Freeman to tell him it just needs good police work?

hit and run

Or...he's sending the Guard down there to ensure that you don't have private citizens protecting their land and property illegally detaining http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6267853.html>innocent, undocumented, pre-Americans

Hyperbole of a nother sort, perhaps...but still.


Thanks for the birthday wishes.

Hit- I actually love getting the birthday wishes on a day other than my birthday. Even months later. I get enough attention on the real day, so another randomly selected day of me-ness is like a dream come true.


Sounds like he's trying to buy some Texan votes.

Thomas Collins

MayBee noted:

I actually love getting the birthday wishes on a day other than my birthday.

If you have the same feeling about other anniversaries and holidays, MayBee, let me wih you a Happy St. Patrick's Day! :-))

Thomas Collins

And also, let me WISH you a Happy St. Patrick's day!

Carl Pham

This is not that cool of an idea, and seems IMHO to have some serious issues, viz.:

(1) With small interceptors you need close-in launch sites, natch (not much fuel aboard), hence the drones. So from where do the drones launch? And how long can they loiter? If they're small drones (low fuel cap) the answer is "uh...close by, I guess" and "STFU! We'll solve that problem in v2.0, 'kay?" Either way, it sounds like you still haven't solved the problem of close-in basing. You still need airfields close to Pyongyang or whatever, it's just you launch drones from there instead of the interceptors themselves.

(2) They have to be stealthy, of course, because anti-aircraft missile tech is cheap, widespread, and reliable. But stealthy = very expensive and in need of continual maintenance. I believe the B-2 has to specially washed down if it gets caught in the rain. The B-2 is the most expensive plane ever built. How much are these drones going to cost, hmm?

(3) Anti-missile missiles rely on IR tracking or extremely good radar, normally ground-based because it's big, expensive, and heavy. IR tracking is, alas, relatively easy to fool. Where's the guidance radar going to go? On those already expensive drones, making them REALLY expensive? Or are we back to the same basing problems with the radar we now have?

I think the notion that it's the interceptors that are the issue here is mistaken. It's more the radar and interceptor basing that are the issues, and have been since the 80s. For boost-phase kills, you need to be close or very, very fast (e.g. the old railguns in orbit notion). The essential problem is that we don't own real estate close enough to every potential launch site.

I dunno about this launch protective service on warning stuff, either. Satellites and aircraft are going to warn us when launch is imminent, and where? Hmmm. Haven't heard of solid-fuel rockets? 1960s-era Minutemen don't need more than about 15 minutes to launch. Or the old Soviet trick of building about 100 fake sites for every real one, and when spy sats fly overhead having enlisted men run around and make an exciting motion? I hate weapons systems that rely on the enemy being stupid and uncreative.

Furthermore, what's wrong with an anti-missile tech that can work well against Russian and Chinese missiles, too? I mean, other than that the NYT has opined for 20 years that such a thing means nuclear Armageddon the Sunday after its deployed, so to climb down from that position now means editorial apoplexy.


Carl Pham? I quoted you here yesterday, or someone else with that name.

The comments to this entry are closed.