Depends on the Definition of Reasonable

Posted by on . 14 comments.

President George W. Bush (7/7/06):

“I think we had a reasonable chance of shooting it down,” Mr. Bush said at a televised news conference in Chicago, where he was asked about North Korea’s test-firing of seven missiles, including one long-range Taepodong 2.

Time (7/3/06):

The system, however, has failed to impress either its critics or its supporters. Philip Coyle, the Pentagon’s chief weapons tester for six years until 2001, says the shield is “a scarecrow defense” of unproven value. Baker Spring of the Heritage Foundation, a long-time backer, bemoans what he sees as Administration foot-dragging. “They are so scared of test failures,” he says, “they’re not moving forward as fast as they can.”
[...]
A 2002 test bombed after the interceptor didn’t separate from its booster. The reason: A single pin on a tiny integrated circuit broke after being violently shaken during the flight. Foam that had been there to protect the pin on prior flights had been removed, supposedly to improve the system’s reliability. A 2004 test failed because an error in one line of computer code kept the interceptor grounded. The most recent failure, in February 2005, happened after two of the three arms that hold the interceptor in place in its silo didn’t fully retract during launch because a part had corroded. The Missile Defense Agency penalized the Boeing Co., the system’s developer, $107 million for the string of snafus. Pentagon audits also slammed Raytheon Corp., which builds the $40 million interceptor, for shoddy work. “The contractor cannot build a consistent and reliable product,” the GAO said in a March report.

Comments

  1. sarabeth says:
    July 7, 2006 at 1:38 pm

    Matt, you’re seriously going to condemn Dear Leader based on what he actually said, without even trying to divine what he so clearly meant between the lines?

    That’s unneedingly unpatriotic, mean, hateful, spiteful, arrogant,insulting and intolerant of you.

  2. puddle says:
    July 7, 2006 at 7:10 pm

    The truth is, we don’t want to tip our hand too early…

    I imagine that the “failed” launches are merely decoys to build up the confidence of countries like Iran and North Korea. When they launch a successful ICBM, we’ll bring out the big guns (AKA. giant fighting robots, satellite-mounted death ray, functional missile defense) and deflect/destroy it. Preemptive strike against us means we get a free pass into their country. After that, it shouldn’t take us more than five or ten years to install a democracy and get the hell out.

    Really, it’s a brilliant plan.

  3. matt says:
    July 7, 2006 at 7:16 pm

    i stand correctable.

  4. sarabeth says:
    July 7, 2006 at 9:05 pm

    After that, it shouldn’t take us more than five or ten years to install a democracy and get the hell out.

    Not to mention that we’ll have to cut taxes on corporations, the wealthy and the very wealthy in order to generate the extra revenue required to pay the democracy installation costs.

    It’s guiness stout brilliant.

    You want to be a General moonlighting as a CEO, or a CEO moonlighting as a General?

  5. JimC says:
    July 8, 2006 at 12:40 pm

    The only thing I will say on this topic is that it seems a tad ironic that Republicans have been criticised for a still marginal missile defense system when it has been the demcorats that have hindered funding and support for it since Reagan…only now that the threat of a lunatic dictator trying to throw nukes at us seems all too real, does the left now want a fully operational missile defense system…

  6. sarabeth says:
    July 8, 2006 at 12:41 pm

    The only thing I will say on this topic

    We’ll hold you to that.

  7. matt says:
    July 8, 2006 at 12:53 pm

    only now that the threat of a lunatic dictator trying to throw nukes at us seems all too real, does the left now want a fully operational missile defense system…

    who on the left? certainly no one here. you’ve been warned repeatedly about ascribing others’ motives to us. so take your freeper talking point elsewhere.

    clearly the point of this post was to expose the president’s dishonesty on this subject. missile defense is a cause championed by leaders who don’t feel that diplomacy is their responsibility. unlike, say, a dirty bomb, missile launches are traceable, and mutually assured destruction (or its unilateral cousin in the case of NK) takes over. missile defense is a boondoggle for defense contractors, and always has been.

  8. sarabeth says:
    July 8, 2006 at 12:56 pm

    now that the threat of a lunatic dictator trying to throw nukes at us

    A dishonest statement right there. Even the Bush administration has conceded that the Taep’o-dong 2 cannot carry a nuclear warhead.

    And anyone who thinks that the North Koreans developed this missile so that they could threaten to blow the western edge of Alaska to smithereens probably should not use the word lunatic in relation to others. Just because the news networks have nothing better to do (than to play up imaginary and improbable threats) does not make the Taep’o-dong 2 in any way a credible threat to the US.

    only now …does the left now want a fully operational missile defense system…

    Substantiation, as always, would have been welcome. But since you promised not to say anything more on this topic, failure to substantiate now will not be held against you. Don’t respond. Keep your word. That’s what Jesus would do.

  9. Mike says:
    July 14, 2006 at 5:26 am

    Hello:

    I’m an economist at Stanford. I’m not a fan of Bush, but I have 2 observations:

    Two points:

    1.) Tax cuts produce more revenue because they create more jobs equaling more taxpayers, and more taxpayers contribute more tax revenue while the aggregate tax payment per person comes down. It works every time it is tried, if the top rate that you are reducing is not too low. You reach a point where you are not going to raise revenue if your tax rate is zero. There is a formula for this. It obviously works, especially with capital gains coming down to 15%. The tax cuts worked, and they worked better than advertised.

    Second point: My father is an engineer that works on the missile defense shield in New Mexico. The below article showcases this and illustrates the blatant ignorance of the previous comments. My father says the defense shield works and is necessary to protect all the American people, even conservatives:)

    White Sands missile test phenomenal’
    By Jason Gibbs/Sun-News reporter

    The rising sun lights a contrail pattern made by a missile test launch at the White Sands Missile Range in the sky over Phoenix, Ariz., early Wednesday. The launch was a test of the Missile Defense Agency’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system. (AP photo)

    WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE — It was a picture-perfect pre-dawn Wednesday and a picture-perfect launch at White Sands Missile Range.

    Hundreds of miles above southern New Mexico, it was a picture-perfect impact between two missiles.

    The morning sky above the Tularosa Basin was painted in every color of the rainbow — hues ranging from iridescent purples to emerald greens and pastel blues, pinks and electric whites against the darkness of space.

    The pre-dawn art show was the result of the third of five tests planned at White Sands Missile Range to determine the effectiveness of THAAD — Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile. And military officials said the test went better than they could have hoped.

    “This was phenomenal,” said U.S. Army Col. Charles Driessnack, the project manager for the Missile Defense Agency’s THAAD program. “It performed as expected.”

    The test demonstrated the THAAD’s ability to “completely destroy that warhead so that no chemical or nuclear residue would contaminate areas” below the explosion, Driessnack said.

    The THAAD missile system was designed by Lockheed Martin, and several company employees and system designers were on hand to witness the test.

    During the test firing, the airspace above the 3,200-square-mile missile range was cleared, including orbiting satellites, said Jim Eckles, a spokesman for the missile range.

    Also, roughly 80 to 90 families were evacuated from surrounding ranch land during the test and traffic was halted on area highways.

    The target — a Hera missile that closely mimics the characteristics of the more infamous SCUD missiles — was launched shortly after 5:17 a.m. Wednesday. It took to the skies from a location on the far northern reaches of the bombing range’s territory, about 100 miles north of the Organ Mountains, 25 miles north of Highway 380.

    It carried a canister of inert material to simulate chemical or biological elements that could be mounted on an enemy missile, Driessnack said. The target missile rose roughly 200 miles above the Earth before beginning the final stage descent toward land.

    The THAAD was launched close to the southern end, on the east side of the Organ Mountains. The object of the THAAD missile is to provide a weapon to intercept incoming missiles during the “terminal” phase, when only seconds remain before it would strike an intended target.

    A crowd of roughly 75 spectators, military personnel and defense department contractors, gathered near the WSMR Museum in the predawn hours to view the test.

    As the target missile launched, it streaked into the still-dark sky, looking like a comet with a long, white tail. As it got to the second firing stage, red fire bloomed out of the leading edge of the missile.

    Minutes later, the THAAD was launched, giving a little pirouette before speeding upward.

    “Get up there baby,” one observer shouted.

    For a couple of minutes, the crowd held their collective breath, waiting to see if the impact would occur as planned.

    When the target missile was destroyed, sending a brilliant white, mushroom-like cloud into the dark sky, the crowd began to applaud and cheer wildly.

    ” We smashed it,” several people cheered

    as the rainbow colored contrail gave way to the cotton ball cloud of destruction above.

    Eckles said contrails and explosions from previous tests have been seen as far away as Phoenix and Tucson. On Wednesday, Phoenix residents again were treated to a colorful contrail pattern over the Arizona skies, while closer-to-home reports were received from Lordsburg, Silver City and Doña Ana County from early risers who observed the same display.

    “All evidence is that it was totally destroyed,” Driessnack said of the target missile during an interview after the test was complete. “We knew from the last test, 60 days ago, that it was working as it should.”

    He said the test indicates THAAD could be ready for emergency deployment “as soon as a year from now.”

    While the previous two THAAD flight tests, also conducted at WSMR, were focused on interceptor fly-out and performance, the remaining flight test program is providing verification of the integrated THAAD element at increasingly difficult levels.

    Further testing, both at White Sands and in the Pacific, is planned. In all, the nine-year program to develop the defense system has cost about $4 billion dollars, and is expected to come up roughly $48 million over budget when complete, Driessnack said.

    It’s the latest step in filling a president directive issued in December 2002 to build a defensive system capable of countering missile threats to our homeland as well as our deployed forces and allies.

    Driessnack said the system could be used “to protect our East and West coasts” from missile attack.

    The United States and North Korea are in a diplomatic stalemate following the communist country’s recent test firing of the long-range Taepodong-2 missile. The missile, which U.S. officials believe to be capable of reaching American soil, exploded some 40 seconds after launch.

    When fully operational, the THAAD system will provide quickly-deployable protection from missile attacks in any region needed, including homeland territory, Driessnack said.

    Jason Gibbs can be reached at jgibbs@lcsun-news.com

    THAAD fast facts

    The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system includes four main components:

    Launcher: Highly mobile, able to store, transport and fire interceptors.

    Interceptors: Designed to intercept its target both in and out of the atmosphere using hit-to-kill lethality.

    Radar: Largest mobile X-band in with world. It provides search, track, discrimination and fire control updates to the interceptor.

    Fire Control: Communication and data-management backbone, links THAAD components together and to external units as well as the entire Ballistic Missile Defense System.

    Source: Missile Defense Agency

  10. sarabeth says:
    July 14, 2006 at 6:07 am

    I’m an economist at Stanford. I’m not a fan of Bush, but I have 2 observations:

    Two points:

    1.) Tax cuts produce more revenue because they create more jobs equaling more taxpayers, and more taxpayers contribute more tax revenue while the aggregate tax payment per person comes down. It works every time it is tried, if the top rate that you are reducing is not too low. You reach a point where you are not going to raise revenue if your tax rate is zero. There is a formula for this. It obviously works, especially with capital gains coming down to 15%. The tax cuts worked, and they worked better than advertised.

    Mike, with all due respect:
    I know several Stanford economists. Stanford economists are friends of mine. You’re no Stanford economist.

    Stanford economists are trained to respect the evidence. And the evidence (from the President’s own economists) is that the statements you have made above are pure bullshit.

    If you want to argue the point, Matt will be happy to provide the link. He had cited the study in a recent post.

    (Give my best to your father too.)

  11. sarabeth says:
    July 14, 2006 at 6:28 am

    I found the link myself. Here are some juicy parts:

    But the president’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts did not generate enough additional revenue to pay for themselves, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin. He was the chief economist for Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers in 2001 and 2002, then the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) until late last year.
    [...]
    Secretary John Snow … acknowledged that the tax reductions did not pay for themselves…
    [...]
    A Harvard University study concluded last December that up to 50% of a cut in capital-gains taxes would flow back to the Treasury in new revenues.

    “The feedback is surprisingly large,” concluded N. Gregory Mankiw, the study’s coauthor. He headed Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005.

    That’s in line with a December study by the CBO. It looked at a hypothetical 10% cut in income-tax rates and concluded that up to 22% of the lost revenue could be regained over five years, and up to 32% over five more years.

    Like I said before, what you claimed is pure bullshit.

    I hope you didn’t manage to miss the fact that the former head of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers says very clearly that no one who knows anything about economics would even expect tax cuts to pay for themselves. Getting back half the lost revenue from capital gains tax cuts is larger than expected.

    Translation for those determined to ignore the facts: at the time we cut taxes, it was thoroughly unreasonable to expect they would pay for themselves. To make that claim was the economic version of the Niger cake debacle.

  12. matt says:
    July 14, 2006 at 6:31 am

    I’m an economist at Stanford.

    At the Hoover Inst.? Come on.

    Tax cuts produce more revenue because they create more jobs equaling more taxpayers, and more taxpayers contribute more tax revenue while the aggregate tax payment per person comes down.

    N. Gregory Mankiw, the President’s former Council of Economic Advisers chair disagrees (PDF)

    we find that the immediate revenue feedback effects are quite similar for capital and labor taxes: slightly more than 10 percent of a tax cut immediately pays for itself through higher labor supply and national income. For both types of taxes, the feedbacks grow over time toward their steady-state values, with the feedback for a capital tax cut reaching halfway after about ten years.
    [...]
    Then, in the steady state, the dynamic effect of a cut in capital income taxes on government revenue is only 50 percent of the static effect. That is, one-half of a capital tax cut pays for itself.

    this is best case, assuming that spending is cut along with taxes, something that, as a stanford economist, you should be able to recognize.

    It works every time it is tried…The tax cuts worked, and they worked better than advertised.

    Supply side tax cuts have never worked. Reagan’s then-record tax cuts had to be corrected by the largest increase in taxes ever. If you think bush’s tax cuts worked, please explain to all of us non-stanford economists how they worked “better than advertised.” please provide relevant links including charts illustrating promised job growth vs actual. and no, you can’t use daddy as a source.

    My father says the defense shield works and is necessary to protect all the American people

    a bit self serving considering where his paycheck comes from, no? ask him about the homing devices used to help the missile find it’s target. does he reckon Kim Jong Il will help us out and by using them to?

  13. sarabeth says:
    July 14, 2006 at 6:41 am

    I’m an economist at Stanford.

    Mike, you want to explain to everyone how that was such an unfortunate typo, or would you like me to do it on your behalf?

  14. Nick in Beantown says:
    July 14, 2006 at 8:11 am

    Must be a Liberman voter…