Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, March 24, 2008
Phyllis Schlafly :: Townhall.com Columnist
Successful Missile Strike Validates Reagan's Wisdom
by Phyllis Schlafly
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


The U.S. Navy gave Ronald Reagan a dramatic 25th anniversary gift on Feb. 21. A Navy missile raced into outer space and destroyed an orbiting satellite, thereby providing new proof of the vision President Reagan proclaimed in his then-sensational televised address on March 23, 1983.

While the Navy SM-3 missile didn't knock down an incoming nuclear missile, the direct hit on a satellite proved again that U.S. anti-missile technology is mature and reliable, and that an effective anti-missile system is within our grasp. Traveling at 6,000 miles per hour after being launched from a U.S. Navy Aegis cruiser in the Pacific, the SM-3 missile was even more accurate than anyone had predicted because it struck precisely at the satellite's dangerous fuel tank.

The successful kill of the satellite also confirmed the ability of the SM-3 to intercept at a higher elevation than had ever been tested before. It revalidated the Bush administration's expenditure of $10 billion a year on anti-missile defenses.

This direct hit comes on the heels of a particularly impressive track record of successful anti-missile tests in 2007. Since 2005, the Missile Defense Agency has scored 21 successful space interceptions in 22 tests.

The so-called world community, egged on by U.S. pacifists and disarmament professionals, grumbled and sputtered because the United States dared to knock out a satellite. Actually, there was a very persuasive reason for our government to take immediate action against this particular satellite.

It had failed in its mission and was edging closer to Earth carrying a large tank of toxic fuel that would be harmful to many people if it crashed into a populated area. Our government acted properly to protect the world against such an unnecessary disaster.

This demonstration of U.S. anti-satellite capability also had a useful side effect. It signaled China that we have anti-satellite technology and power.

China shocked the world on Jan. 11, 2007, by conducting the first successful test of an anti-satellite weapon. In its usual disregard for the health of humankind, China's test left 2,500 pieces of debris in space spread out in a way that poses a danger to manned and unmanned spacecraft.

U.S. officials recognized China's action as a new strategic threat. Killing a communications satellite could knock out U.S. military and civilian communications systems.

In his 1983 address, Reagan announced that he was "launching an effort which holds the promise of changing the course of human history." Indeed, it did. His speech extricated America from the defeatist McNamara-Kissinger-Nixon-Ford-Carter strategy of mutual assured destruction, known descriptively by its acronym MAD.

The MAD strategy postulated that our only hope of avoiding nuclear war was by threatening massive retaliation and killing as many enemy people we could. "Morning-in-America" Reagan offered the contrary vision of hope.

"Wouldn't it be better to save lives than to avenge them?" he said. "What if we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?"

Reagan thus added the necessary fourth leg to his strategy of Peace Through Strength. It encompassed not only diplomacy, deterrence and offensive weapons, but also defensive weapons.

This made eminently good sense to the American people, who fully understand that battle requires both a sword and a shield. Conservatives had been pleading for an anti-missile defense system for more than 20 years.

The whole disarmament/pacifist crowd attacked Reagan unmercifully for his determination to defend America with defensive as well as offensive weapons. U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., led the pack by ridiculing Reagan's plan as Star Wars.

Reagan's opponents criticized him on every front, claiming an anti-missile system can't work because it requires hitting a bullet with a bullet. This new test should finally put to rest the false claims that it won't work.

Now, with the benefit of hindsight, we know that it was Reagan's determination to push forward with what became known as his Strategic Defense Initiative that won the Cold War. The Strategic Defense Initiative was the centerpiece of his strategy.

At the Geneva and Reykjavik Summits, Mikhail Gorbachev, then the leader of the Soviet Union, offered every carrot and stick in his arsenal to persuade or intimidate Reagan into abandoning the Strategic Defense Initiative. When Reagan refused, Gorbachev realized the jig was up for the Soviet empire and its delusions of world conquest because the Soviets could not compete with the U.S. military-economic powerhouse.

Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, so courageously proposed in 1983, ultimately enabled him to defeat the "Evil Empire" without firing a shot. We know the system works, and it's just as necessary in the post-Sept. 11 world as in the days of the Soviet threat.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Phyllis Schlafly is a national leader of the pro-family movement, a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Feminist Fantasies.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Phyllis Schlafly‘s column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

Great News!
Now all we have to do is make sure that our enemies only fire ballistic missiles as big as a school bus and give us the exact trajectories a few weeks in advance. Even if they don't, I'm sure that with such a "mature and reliable" system, we won't have to wait a whole day to know with "a high degree of confidence" if it was a success.

school bus
That might be a accurate assertion camanintx if she hadn't mentioned that we hit the gas tank on the satellite which is only a could of yards long.

Even if your assertion was exactly correct and all we could hit at this point is a school bus sized object, it proves the technology could be developed to the point of hitting something faster and smaller.

Former "Missile Man"
As a former member of the Army Air Defense Command (ARADCOM) and by virtue of that a NORAD member as well, I am totally against a LAND based US missile defense system. That said, as a former member of ARADCOM and NORAD I am totally in favor of a NAVAL based US missile defense system. A land ABM site is only a fixed target, not a true defense.

Especially if it involves missile batteries made up of submarines. If a sub can launch an ICBM, it can launch an ABM. A sub can track a hostile target from launch directly, by remote radar, or by satellite. A battery of subs can "loiter" on remote stations and shoot quicker than land or surface defense. The air defense of the Continental USA and its military outposts is a paradox. The land is best defended from the sea and the submarine is the best weapon to do that.

The air defense of the Continental US can be stationed in the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico and the North Polar Sea. As well as the Arabian Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Indian Sea, the Korean Sea or wherever the US needs to project "defensive" missile capability.

Not really
Reagan's SDI was aimed against the USSR--not a rogue state like the DPRK, Iran or even some non-state actor like Al Qaeda. The Soviets would have launched hundreds if not thousands of missiles in an attack many of which would be MRVs. The current technology would be overwhelmed by such an attack--let alone technology present in 1984. Another drawback is even single missles will deploy decoy tactics masking the warhead or missle. The hitting the satellite is nothing compared to a real world attack. One thing to hit an object where you know exactly where it is and where is it going and at what speed (just like the "tests" the US holds from time to time to prove the concept), quite another to hit an object that will strike in 15 minutes or less, where it's exact location will be difficult to precisely locate and its speed and trajectory is a mystery and add that to the decoy elements and if this is China on the otherend of the attack you may be facing 100-200 missles and if the Russian Federation a few thousand.

As for hitting the satellite, not that big of a deal really. Any nation with even an elementry missle program should be able to accomplish this as China showed more than a year ago.

Japan, the EU, Russia among others could do the same.

Reagan said "What if we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?"

Yes, it'd be great to visit other stars too, but SDI's hope at stopping anything beyond a single missle (and even that is dubious) is just that..hope. Maybe in the future, technology will exist to do such, but it doesn't exist now.


Well Bucko
That is good, since the land-based PATRIOTS only have about a 10% success rate and the Israelis claim that the number is closer to zero. A sub can launch an ABM, but it can't launch it against 200 missles from the PLA or a thousand from the Russian Federation.

Yes, the US might be able to take out a single missle from the DPRK, but as we have seen with PATRIOT and other real world examples this is far from a given. The satellite shoot-down and the "tests" conducted so far have shown nothing of how current technology would work under a real attack.


camanintx
So the Wright Brother's first flight wasn't non-stop trans-Atlantic. I'm sure glad they didn't stop trying.

Maybe this isn't definitive proof of the missile defense system's capabilities, but does this mean we should stop investing in and testing systems capable of DEFENDING our country.

I don't understand you libs. You go apoplectic when we attack those who attack us, and fight tooth and nail to prevent us from taking steps to defend ourselves.

Whose side are you guys on anyway?

Akagi
You may want to read up on the. The Navy shot down two missiles at one time.

It can scale well apparently.

Reagan was right; again
How many times does Reagan have to be proven right before liberals will acknowledge his greatness?

The Soviet Union has been "consigned to the ash-heap of history", the US economy flourished beyond belief once government was taken out of the way, welfare reform allowed blacks to escape poverty using Reagan's preferred mode ("a good job"), and Gorbachev did, in fact "tear down (that) wall".

Now we are within reach of his most ambitious dream: a defense system against nuclear missiles.

Accept it: the C-student, B-movie actor was an A+ president. Imagine what he would have accomplished if had only studied harder!

Akagi writes:
"Yes, it'd be great to visit other stars too, but SDI's hope at stopping anything beyond a single missle (and even that is dubious) is just that..hope. Maybe in the future, technology will exist to do such, but it doesn't exist now."

Ahhh, yes. But, as this column demonstrates, we are much closer to achieving this goal than we were 25 years ago, when critics like Akagi were in the majority.

and...

"That is good, since the land-based PATRIOTS only have about a 10% success rate and the Israelis claim that the number is closer to zero."

This isn't 1991's Desert Storm anymore, Akagi.

In conclusion, unless and until the U.S. actually and successfully counters an attack of several ICBMs, there will be naysayers like Akagi & camanintx... unfortunately.



Akagi
Technology proceeds in stages. We have proven that you can shoot down a relatively small object traveling at immense speed from a great distance. Over the coming years the technology will be refined and improved. Do you remember the first cell phone?

BWAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA
"CORNHOLE"

Stop it Charles.
You're killing me.
I've never heard that one before.

Your wit is exceeded only by your ignorance.

Cal me
When you knock down 200 some of which are MRVs with 15 minutes or less warning and act like ICBMs and not like a hunk of metal floating in the sky in established and known paths and days warning--real life doesn't act like that.

I never said you shouldn't stop trying...I am saying that what the US has done so far is not that big of a deal and something China with a mostly 1970s-Soviet military can do quite well also. So don't expect this to impress China all that much and can PS write about anything without linking it to China--yes, I write lots about Taiwan and China--my blog is mostly a Taiwan-oriented blog, but I don't link everything I write to Taiwan, can PS say the same..seems every article she writes she links to the mainland...what next "Lunar eclipse, was China to blame?"

Oh and I'm not a "lib" or a conservative.


Akagi
Your 5:16 doesn't change a thing from my original premise.

You're a naysayer - I get it.

There were naysayers in the 60's that said we'd never land on the moon, either.

Finally, your attempt to assign some kind of "China hate" motivation onto Phyllis Schlafly is both laughable and childish.

I don't have to
"your attempt to assign some kind of "China hate" motivation onto Phyllis Schlafly is both laughable and childish."

I don't have to assign any that is quite clear from her articles.

And yes Primus, until the US can actually demostrate hitting something that actually resembles what a real attack would look like, don't color me that impressed. I'd not be impressed if you went to the zoo and shot a tiger either.

SM-3 Test
One test or total failure does not make a system successful or not successful. It just gives you data that you can work with. We won't have a amswer as to it being a good system for some time to come. The orbit of thr satellie was well defined and there were no decoys or counter measures to defeat.

I have no problem with testing the system,but the hydrazine tank rationale is a "dog that won't hunt."

SM-3 Tests et al
There ahve been over 27 successful tests of the SM-3 with 2 failures, one the SM-3 failed to launch due to software glitch and 2nd was with the target vehicle failing.


http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html

Read up on the results, you will be surprised how well it works and how successful this program really is.

Who is Og trying to kid?
I mean really, he invented this thing called a "wheel", which he insists will change the world. I mean, sure its nice and round, and may have a few practical applications, but its not like he changed the world with its invention.

Its only a matter of time before someone loses an eye...

Fire?
Fire is far too dangerous to be left in the hands of man. Lets ban it, except for in the hands of government. Consider the environmental impact. I mean, if you were to put fire together with the "wheel", who knows what the environmental impact could be.

Dank caves were good enough for our fathers, they should be good enough for us.

Re: Akagi
A couple of points about ABM's. Only the early ABM's were designed to attack the warhead on re-entry. The current design since the late 80's actually has been a space born interception either pre-mirv with chemical explosives or kinetic energy or post mirv with tactical nuclear detonation. Either would be very effective and is the reason the USSR tossed in it's chips. Weapons designed to for targets in space are simpler to build and cheaper to launch than ones targeted at pin points on the ground. Consider launching a modern ICBM which has to strike multiple hardened targets with fairly good accuracy. It's like tossing a lawn dart from Los Angeles and hitting a particular lawn in Las Vegas. It can be done but it's not cheap nor is it easy and when somebody puts up a wall to block the dart it becomes much more expensive to hit the target.

Maldain don't confuse Akagi
His mind is made up. Don't confuse him with logical thought processes and difficult to understand examples. It won't help. He thinks Tigers in zoos are an equal threat to the USA.

The most dangerous threat:
I have been for an anti-missile defense since the days when Reagan proposed such a thing. Unfortunately for us and our entire civilization, nuclear-tipped missiles may not remain the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. The weapons threat that seems to be off the radar-screen of our entire political discourse is what happens when one of our foes gets use of weapons based on nanotechnology (devices that are microscopic and can be produced in the billions.)
I am certain that the Chinese military is already pursuing such weapons, but they won't admit it until the time comes that they find the nanotech means to destroy us-- and then use it without prior warning. The scary thing is that I know of no evidence that our government is even pursuing nanotech weapons or the means to counter them. The only one I know of attempting to bring this to our awareness is Lez Nazarov,a former defector from the Soviet Union.

Akagi
" never said you shouldn't stop trying...I am saying that what the US has done so far is not that big of a deal and something China with a mostly 1970s-Soviet military can do quite well"

Actually the Chicoms closed the missle and technology gap with us 14 years ago. Thanks to Clinton's Quid Pro Quo (The CHICOMs illegally funneled campagin contributions to Clinton), Clinton was able to remove a whole host of technology restrictions. The Dept of Commerce allowed TRW, Hughes,Cray. Rockwell,Cisco,AT&T, Sun Micro, IBM, and Lorral to sell everything from guidence systems, both hardware and software based global positioning technology, super computers, advanced teclo equipment, advanced tooling to make centrifuges, etc... In a period of 5 years the Chicoms closed a 35 year technology gap. Everyone made out: the defence and tecnology sector made billions, the Chicoms got parity, and Clinton got elected.

SDI...
is evolving. The SM-3 tests are significant (especially for my company, who builds it) but anyone involved will tell you we have a long way to go. To be truly effective, we will need the ability to intercept an ICBM in boost phase, prior to MIRVing. That remains a good distance down the road.

SM-3 Supports MAD to Preclude Attack

Thanks to Maldain re Akagi for his information. It supports the theory that Russia threw in the sponge because it could not pinpoint in time the location of our mobile command centers so as to preclude mutually assured destruction should it launch an attack. Satellite observation of command center locations would change regularly so that they could not be targeted with certainty. Maldain adds that Russia could see that we could likely be able, sooner or later, to destroy incoming missiles in space.

Thus MAD precludes missile attack by major powers. Rogue powers with only one or two missiles, such as Iran, could be effectively blocked by the Navy's SM-3 missile. A power such as Iran might be able to sufficiently disguise its launch point so as to make uncertain the source of the missile, thus escaping MAD. And this is the major and absolutely vital importance of anti-missile defenses such as SM-3.

SDI AND BEYOND
You folks seem to be locked up on who is right and who is left on this topic and that's just great.

Here's the point, technology is at the present on our side, if we let down or miss a beat were morte della, the enemies we have are more than willing to do us great damage be we peaceniks or imperialist, there is no slack. Like it or not the humankind of this earth are going to compete for every scrap and item that you can list but here, you can at least practice life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and if that doesn't suit you then there are options in other places on earth.

If it's called CYA then I would rather take my chances here in this country. So far it's been pretty good to me and my own, past and present.

Test Reason
I hardly believe that the government was really concerned about the satellite hitting something on the ground or the fuel in it. I remember someone on the television news commenting that the satellite should burn up in the atmosphere anyway. They simply wanted to test the missile system. If the tank didn't burn up then it wouldn't have caused a problem when it hit since the fuel would have been incinerated on the way down.

The real reason, in my opinion, was that the Chinese announced it had a missile capable of reaching the United States. Further, they made a comment about putting some "defensive" satellites in orbit. (Translate that to missiles in orbit.) The United States was simply demonstrating that such weapons were useless if we wanted to blow them up.

No one knows
How advanced our MDS is except those that are working on it.

Saddam attacked the US 171 times,
I just can't let that one pass. To say Iraq never attacked the U.S. is bull. During the period between the 1st and 2nd gulf war, Saddam attacked U.S. forces 171 times. The last attack was just 23 days prior to the second gulf war. That's a fact, jack. Of course I would want to interfere with your liberal illusions, so go back to doing crack now....

Tidy vs Messy Weapons???
Schafly:
"A Navy missile raced into outer space and destroyed an orbiting satellite, thereby providing new proof of the vision President Reagan proclaimed in his then-sensational televised address on March 23, 1983."

" China shocked the world on Jan. 11, 2007, by conducting the first successful test of an anti-satellite weapon. In its usual disregard for the health of humankind, China's test left 2,500 pieces of debris in space spread out in a way that poses a danger to manned and unmanned spacecraft."

I guess the 1983 American ICBM was equipped with brooms & dustpans??


from Ronald Reagan SDI speech..
"The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression -- to preserve freedom and peace.

Since the dawn of the atomic age, we've sought to reduce the risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by seeking genuine arms control. "Deterrence" means simply this: making sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States, or our allies, or our vital interest, concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he won't attack."

Afghanistan, Iraq.. didn't understand.....

Star Wars
In 2000 Dick Cheney, working through the PNAC, commissioned a policy paper which is online in case anybody wants to read it: google "Rebuilding America's Defenses". It is a blueprint for making the United States the conqueror of the entire globe, and also space. You can also google "US Air Force Space Command"---it's not a comic book, but a division of our military.

I noticed Schlafly's words "egged on by US pacificsts and disarmament specialists". We are already involved, perhaps endlessly, in a war so expensive that it is impacting our entire economy (google again, "The Three Trillion Dollar War"). If Reagan's Star Wars dream comes true, what we have spent in Iraq will not be pocket change---there is no way we can survive as a nation and take on the task of subjugating the entire globe, from space yet. The pacifists and disarmament specialists may not be all that crazy. Reasonable people will listen to them.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.