a gem... MG ----- Original Message ----- From: MichaelP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <unlikely suspects: ;> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 8:59 PM Subject: brits think spending $122bn on missile defence systems is funny > GUARDIAN (London)Wednesday July 12, 2000 > > Missile impossible, part two > This was a most expensive display, much like our own River of Fire > John O'Farrell > > It has been a difficult few days for Lieutenant- General Ronald Kadish, > director of America's Ballistic Missile Defence Organisation. > > At the weekend he invited friends over to show them his new > intercontinental missile defence shield, and isn't it always the way; the > bloody thing didn't work. A Minuteman II was fired from southern > California. Another missile was fired from 4,500 miles away in the middle > of the Pacific ocean to intercept the oncoming warhead, but apparently the > necessary electronic signal was not received at the correct time or > something. That'll teach him not to read the manual beforehand. > > It all happened so quickly; suddenly the missile was careering off target, > billions of dollars of military hardware was heading in the wrong > direction at 16,000mph and Ronald was frantically skimming through the > chapter entitled Care of Your Minuteman Missile System. > > Then his wife had a better idea: "Quick phone the helpline!" And while the > president was demanding to know what was going on, the poor general was > stuck listening to a recorded message that said "Thank you for calling the > ICBM helpline --. > If you wish to purchase other Minuteman missile systems, press 1. > If you are phoning about our direct debit payment plan, press 2. > If your intercontinental missile has malfunctioned and is hurtling toward > southern California, press 3 and hold for an operator." > > Then they played a tinny version of Bolero as the general watched $100bn > go up in smoke. > > It was the most expensive fireworks display of all time, but like our own > River of Fire, it was a bit of a disappointment. Everyone went "ooohhh" > but there was no "aaahhh". Not even Mrs. Kadish's delicious mulled wine > and the packet of sparklers could offer much consolation. Hundreds of > people covered their eyes in embarrassed disbelief. It was like the > premier of John Travolta's Battlefield Earth all over again. > > This is not the first time America's missile systems have missed their > target. During the Gulf war, a great deal was made of the Patriot > missiles' ability to knock out the oncoming Scuds. The Patriots were > declared a huge success because out of 22 Scuds fired, 21 were > intercepted. But this is where the US military use a different language to > the rest of us. > > As everyone remembers, lots of Scuds got through and caused enormous > damage. So a Pentagon spokesman was forced to explain that when they said > "intercepted", they meant that the path of the Patriot crossed the path of > the Scud, though not necessarily at the same time. So "intercepted" means > "missed". If modern defence strategists had planned the D-day landings, > the allied forces would have found themselves wading ashore at > Torremolinos. > > Despite the US spending $122bn on missile defence systems, they have yet > to develop anything which actually defends anyone against missiles. > Perhaps I'm being over-picky, but you would have thought that this wasn't > really good enough. And even though it is no longer clear who is going to > declare war on the world's only super-power, the man who may well be the > next president, George W Bush, remains a great supporter of the Stars Wars > project. America may have token enemies like Iraq or Libya, but they're no > more likely to launch intercontinental missile attacks than Darth Vader > himself. > > Instead of spending unfeasibly large amounts of money on the unworkable > national defence shield, the Pentagon would be better off buying a Super > Soaker XP 2000 (slogan, Wetter is Better). Admittedly it is unlikely that > the Super Soaker would actually intercept any incoming nuclear missiles > but it's got about the same chance as anything else they have tried while > having the advantage of being cheaper. Even if the Pentagon eventually > upgraded to the more expensive Super Soaker Monster XL with multiple > nozzles and extra large reservoir, they would still save a fortune. > > Of course, when it comes to military spending the cash is always > available. They could launch an aircraft carrier that didn't float and > still get funding for another one. Why is it that enormous amounts of > taxpayers' money are always available for defence spending, and yet if it > is education or health we have to help make up the shortfall ourselves? > You don't get soldiers' wives organising summer fetes to raise money for > much needed nuclear warheads. "Tank rides round the square 50p." "Throw a > wet sponge at the general - three goes for a pound." I suppose the sponge > would only fly off in the wrong direction and land on the napalm barbecue. > > If the smart bombs were that smart they would decommission themselves and > redirect the much needed funding towards health, education and overseas > aid. It wasn't the missile that missed the target this week. It was all > that money that went up in smoke with it. > > ====================== > > *** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material > is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest > in receiving the included information for research and educational > purposes. Feel free to distribute widely but PLEASE acknowledge the > source. *** > >
