Iran

Shooting Down Missile Defense

by

In late June, the U.S. Missile Defense agency conducted a successful test of THAAD, the Terminal High Area Defense system. THAAD is intended to provide the upper level of a multilayer defensive shield, with a lower-level defense provided by Patriot or a similar system. It is particularly intended as a defense against short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, although it also offers some capability against intercontinental missiles.

I don’t think Barack Obama would be much of a THAAD supporter. In this speech, he says he would cut investments in “unproven missile defense systems” and indeed seems pretty hostile to defense technology programs in general.

I guess THAAD counts as an “unproven technology,” given that it has not yet been combat-tested or even deployed. The radar-and-communications network that protected Britain from air attack during WWII was also an “unproven technology” when it was deployed: it is very fortunate that Neville Chamberlain, rather than Barack Obama, was Prime Minister of Britain at the time.

THAAD is a hit-to-kill system: it destroys its targets via force of impact, rather than with an explosive charge. This is basically “hitting a bullet with a bullet,” an idea that opponents of missile defense have long mocked.

An aerodynamicist once supposedly “proved” that it was impossible for bumblebees to fly; however, the bumblebee continues flying happily, unaware of the impossibility of its behavior. Similarly, THAAD “hits a bullet with a bullet,” not deterred by the supposed impossibility of this action.

Very clearly, “progressives”–and even many mainstream liberals–have long been hostile to the very idea of missile defense. They were hostile to it when the principal threat was from the Soviet Union, and they are hostile to it when the principal threat is from rogue states, terrorists, and a brutish theocracy. They were hostile to it when the latest thing in computer technology was the IBM System/370, and they are hostile to it several generations of technology later. It seems to really bother them that any system should be so presumptuous as to interpose itself between Americans–and citizens of allied nations–and those who would launch missiles at them.

Why?

Iran: Not a Serious Threat?

by

Barack Obama gave an interesting description of Iran and the threat it poses to the United States and our national interests at an appearance in Oregon last night. “They don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us,” Obama told a cheering audience, explaining why he doesn’t think we need to worry about “tiny” countries like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran.

(from HotAir)

People often underestimate new kinds of threats because they don’t look like the old threats. In the early 1920s and early 1930s, military aircraft didn’t look very impressive when compared with the warships of the day. It was hard to believe that a flimsy-looking biplane could really be a threat to a battleship of ten thousand times its own weight. Only real visionaries could see what was coming.

But after 9/11…indeed, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki…the danger of rogue states, in league with terrorists and motivated by apocalyptic beliefs…should be obvious to all. Downplaying this threat in 2008 is not like failing to understand the threat of the torpedo bomber in 1930. It is like failing to understand the threat of the torpedo bomber after December 10, 1941. (The date marking the sinking of the British warships Prince of Wales and Repulse, following quickly after the Pearl Harbor attack.)

Phalanx Gun

by

Most of you have seen or read that some Iranian boats buzzed a few of our ships that were steaming in international waters near the Straits of Hormuz. The US ships were a cruiser (USS Port Royal, CG 73), a destroyer (USS Hopper, DDG 70) and a frigate (USS Ingraham, FFG 61).

Here is some raw video of the incident:
 


 

Read more

The Last Three Years in Iraq

by

Alec Rawls over at Error Theory has an interesting analysis concerning al Qaeda, Iraq, and the Democrats.

I think that Alec is substantially right about the situation in that the majority of the Iraqi population has turned against the terrorists, and they are currently hostile towards Islamic extremism. It also seems to me that the creation of a truly secular democracy (Alec refers to it as a “republic in the American sense”) is possible within the next decade, instead of in 30 or 40 years as I once thought.

But I’m not ready to agree completely with Mr. Rawls about some of the details when it comes to how this came about, mainly because I think whatever success we are currently enjoying is more due to mistakes made by the jihadis than a masterful stroke of genius on the part of the Bush administration. Our main advantage is that we can adapt when conditions change, something that our enemies seem to have a very hard time accomplishing.

But enough nitpicking. The essay is certainly though provoking if nothing else, and I think it would be worth your while to give it a read.

(Hat tip to Ace.)

Ahmadinejad May Be Evil, but Bollinger is Irritating

by

About Columbia. Is it just me or did Bollinger seem arrogant on a grand order? In the first place, he assumes the right to free speech rests upon Columbia’s platform. This confusion often is voiced in academic surroundings – not supporting a particular kind of art or scholarship or speech is not censoring it – despite the artist’s or scholar’s or speaker’s belief they deserve support; this only has weight in a world in which all art or scholarship or speech is cleared through and supported by the government. Then, there is the irony of Bollinger’s position in relation to army recruiting and the Minutemen.

Read more