Update/Correction: Cross-referencing my results with that of the MRC's internal database, I found a news mention on the June 26 "Today" of the previous day's missile test, which aired at the 9:00 a.m. news brief.
I know that missile defense is hardly a major political issue right now, but successes in the program are worth at least passing mention in broadcast media, particularly given tensions with Iran and the utility of missile defenses for our military forces should conflict ensue with the nuclear weapon-pursuing theocratic state.
Unfortunately, according to Nexis, no such stories were filed on either ABC or CBS programming following the latest test on June 26. This despite the fact that the test involved a not one but two complicating twists to the testing scheme. Reported the Honolulu Advertiser's Diana Leone (emphasis mine):
LIHU'E, Kaua'i — An interceptor missile launched from Kaua'i hit its target yesterday in the first such test in which a target was dropped from an airplane.
A Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile was fired from the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Barking Sands to intercept a target launched from an Air Force C-17 aircraft at 4:16 p.m., the U.S. Missile Defense Agency reported.
The THAAD missile hit its target six minutes later.
"It was an amazing feat," said Col. William Lamb, THAAD project manager for the Missile Defense Agency.
The target had a dummy warhead that separated from its propellant base — another first for the testing program — which increased the challenge for the interceptor to detect and "kill" the correct piece of the target, Lamb said.
On June 5, the Navy also had a successful sea-based missile defense test. That test did receive coverage on the network morning shows, with news briefs by NBC's Natalie Morales on the June 6 "Today" and CBS's Andrea Stassou on the June 6 "Early Show."
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
What?!
June 30, 2008 - 16:12 ET by FoolicanAn American missile test? Are you suggesting that the media cover a show of imperialist warfare muscle-flexing?
Warmonger!
Ah I love the smell of
June 30, 2008 - 16:15 ET by liberal_bug_zapperAh I love the smell of missile exhaust in the morning.
____________________________________________________
"A society that puts equality...ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom." ~ Milton Friedman
It smells like...
June 30, 2008 - 16:19 ET by Prester John....VICTORY.
Good for USA = Bad for MSM
June 30, 2008 - 16:19 ET by mattmGood for USA = Bad for MSM and vice versa.
Come on Ken...
June 30, 2008 - 16:35 ET by ontheright...you know this doesn't fit the "hope and change" template.
What's the matter with you? - ;-)
That's what Obama calls unproven
June 30, 2008 - 17:11 ET by szampThis is what Obama calls unproven and wants to get rid off.
http://missilethreat.com/archives/id.7086/detail.asp
I can picture him praying for us to be destroyed. If the enemy from abroad doesn't do it, he will.
Libs Don't Care
June 30, 2008 - 18:33 ET by Del DolemonteWe have been discussing this test over at Power Line. The clueless Leftists claim that these tests are "rigged", and that no missile defense we ever develop will work. They would rather we just chuck the entire thing and let all the other countries that have ballistic missiles attack us without fear of retribution.
Yep, they are living in a parallel universe, all right.
By the way, I stayed for 8 days a few miles east of Barking Sands several years ago. Lots of nice beaches there, with hardly any people. But security there is VERY tight.
Star Wars
June 30, 2008 - 20:30 ET by air conservativeFirst off, how many countries do you think have the ability to get a missile here? North Korea claimed to, and their test to prove it went like 500 miles. China? Unlikely (see below). Russia? Unlikely (see below). Second, one of the things that people don't realize is that the missile defense system, to be successful, needs to intercept missiles soon after launch, which requires to have intercept missiles stationed within countries neighboring of the launch area. It becomes nearly impossible once an ICBM reaches cruising velocity to shoot down. Modern cruise missiles can deploy chaffing and evassive maneuvers to avoid intercept.
Also, I think you confuse self-defense and retribution. Missile defense or no, any country that attacks us will face retribution. Period. Over the years, star wars has been a great tool akin to the doomsday machine in Doctor Strangelove. Reagan realized it didn't really need to function to serve its purpose - in fact, the publicizing of it began while they knew at the time that it would be decades (if ever) before it would minimally be functional. It didn't need to be.
Imagine you have a geographically isolated superpower (the US) in the world with a huge nuclear arsenal, that can only be reached via ICBM (not an easy feat), and this country claims that it has SDI and that it cannot be hit by incoming missiles, AND this country runs publicized tests of said system... you aren't going to be quick to attack. Reagan knew this and fear of it helped bring down the USSR.
Of course this all exists in a pre-911mindset - the world-super-power mindset. Post 911, our biggest danger is not nukes by air, but nukes by boat or land. There are 12 Russian suitcase nukes unaccounted for since the fall of USSR.
First of All
June 30, 2008 - 20:42 ET by Del DolemonteWiki's own founder, Jimmy Wales, says it cannot be considered a reliable reference source. So I never trust it for stuff like this.
Both China and Russia have naval vessels, especially submarines, that can easily launch missiles at the US from close up. So your "geographical isolation" theory doesn't hold water.
These missile tests currently underway in Hawaii are primarily for systems to defend individual ships, not the US as a whole. And many of our allies (even Norway) are buying this new system being tested for us.
As I said, China and Russia
June 30, 2008 - 21:59 ET by air conservativeAs I said, China and Russia aren't likely to attack us - their self-interests outweigh an attack and they don't have a martyrdom mentality - which is what such an attack would require. As for wikipedia as a "source for stuff like this"... we're not exactly deciding policy right here... we're talking on an internet forum anonymously. Wikipedia is perfect for stuff like this. It's a step above "heard it somewhere from someone" and a step below direct sources. My wikipedia citation was intended as a quick reference of which countries had ICBM's, not accurate, intricate technical details of those ICBM's.
More complacency
July 2, 2008 - 06:12 ET by UnsaneChina and Russia aren't likely to attack us, so we should just plan for that to remain so far into the future? Some defensive plan that is. And consider Russia is looking to upgrade its bombers and ICBMs. Why do you think THAT is? I'll help you. (If I could get the book title, I would...) I just read a book that is highly critical of the Russian military establishment about three months ago or so, and among other things there is a large cadre of Russian generals that is still convinced for a garden variety of reasons that the United States and NATO are still the pre-eminent threats to Russia. Thus they plan accordingly.
Also, to this day Russia likes to play its games with NATO and the United States in ways reminiscent of the Cold War.
Russia and China may be a far cry from 20 years ago, but I still don't entirely trust them.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Funny, that just read a lot
June 30, 2008 - 20:47 ET by liberal_bug_zapperFunny, that just read a lot like a Lib trying to sound reasonable. First of all, anti-missile defense is going through much iteration, and the technology is advancing quickly to support close range missile and rocket attacks, as well as ballistic missile attacks. By the way, you don't have to get it before the warhead separates, it is just a lot easier to do so if you get it in the start of it's ballistic arc as it is moving much slower and is a bigger target. What the US is working on also is being able to detect dummies and see through chaff... (chaff only breaks up a radar image, not a heat signature), and new programming in modern missiles can see past flares.
You're sounding like you're saying we shouldn't even try, which is exactly the argument the Libs always use.... Doom and Gloom.... i.e. "We're doomed anyway, so why waste the money on trying!"
I don't buy it. We can deploy these anti-missile defense systems all over the world (and on ships) to defend our global interests.... not just the US mainland. We also have treaties to defend our allies... or should we just ignore all treaties and pull back to the US mainland, build a huge wall and lock everyone out and when anyone knocks, we cower in fear and scream out "THERE'S NOBODY HOME!".... bah.... I say, we better get them before they come for us again.
____________________________________________________
"A society that puts equality...ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom." ~ Milton Friedman
Are you serious? I have
June 30, 2008 - 22:11 ET by air conservativeAre you serious? I have misgivings about a program - and took the time to explain my rationale - you disagree, and now I'm just some liberal? I'm relatively new here (I've read the articles for a while, but only recently began posting), but hope this isn't how it generally works here. I'll admit up front, I'm a fiscal conservative first, socially middle of the road. I think terrorism is our country's #1 priority, but have believed the war in Iraq was a mistake since the build up of troops there in late 2002. I can explain my rationale to all of my views, which is more than many others do. You may disagree, but at least have the decency not to label me.
air c...
June 30, 2008 - 22:18 ET by Clear thinkerIt takes a while, but we will grow on you.
Welcome to the Rodeo!
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Labeling?
July 1, 2008 - 02:34 ET by UnsaneNine times out of ten, the people who whine the loudest about getting labeled are closet Leftists.
Anyways, I disagree totally with your above post. Seems to me that you like complacency. I'm not a fan of complacency. That's what leads to unnecessary deaths.
I think terrorism is our country's #1 priority, but have believed the war in Iraq was a mistake since the build up of troops there in late 2002. This is a bit contrdictory. Terrorism is our country's #1 priority, but yet going after a state sponsor of terrorism was a mistake? I'm confused. Let me guess. You ae one of those "capturing Osama bin Laden will solve everything" types...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
First off, how many
June 30, 2008 - 23:11 ET by BDFirst off, how many countries do you think have the ability to get a missile here?
It becomes nearly impossible once an ICBM reaches cruising velocity to shoot down.
Modern cruise missiles can deploy chaffing and evassive maneuvers to avoid intercept.
Also, I think you confuse self-defense and retribution. Missile defense or no, any country that attacks us will face retribution. Period. Over the years, star wars has been a great tool akin to the doomsday machine in Doctor Strangelove. Reagan realized it didn't really need to function to serve its purpose - in fact, the publicizing of it began while they knew at the time that it would be decades (if ever) before it would minimally be functional. It didn't need to be.
Of course this all exists in a pre-911mindset - the world-super-power mindset. Post 911, our biggest danger is not nukes by air, but nukes by boat or land. There are 12 Russian suitcase nukes unaccounted for since the fall of USSR.
"I assume your point is that
July 1, 2008 - 01:08 ET by air conservative"I assume your point is that since we have multiple threats and threat platforms, we should not prepare to defend against any of them? "
Is that honestly the conclusion you drew from what I wrote? Even the part where I said I believe our biggest threat is suitcase nukes WE KNOW ARE MISSING?
The logical flow of your
July 1, 2008 - 01:33 ET by BDThe logical flow of your argument dictates that since the supposed suitcase nukes are a high priority, they should be worked to exclusion.
Else why mention the suitcase nukes.
Okay, I get it. I'm a
July 1, 2008 - 10:58 ET by air conservativeOkay, I get it. I'm a newbie here, but I get it. This is like a contest of ideas for some of you guys, rather than a discussion. Okay, you win. My ego doesn't need it.
air con,
July 1, 2008 - 11:18 ET by AgnosticIMO, it may be more that you haven't really said what programs you would like to see installed over what we are currently doing as a nation. You mentioned the suitcase nukes a couple of times but that is the device not a solution and possibly a good starting point for a system you would propose. When you criticize ideas, even in a mature fasion, it is always best to put up your alternatives or will usually be seen as complaining or attacking in the written medium.
Other than that I thought your post were good.
I thought mentioning
July 1, 2008 - 11:59 ET by air conservativeI thought mentioning suitcase nukes over land or sea vs the difficulty of getting an ICBMs here made my point obvious, but I guess not. I think more focus needs to be spent on ports and borders than airborne nukes right now, given where we currently stand diplomatically with nations who possess ICBM's vs God-knows-who has the suitcase nukes (which I view as something more urgent, given al queda's desire to get one).
The comments you made
July 1, 2008 - 12:21 ET by BDThe comments you made caused me to infer the following.
Any form of Strategic/Theater missile defense is un-needed because other forms of attack exist.
Was I wrong?
suitcase
July 1, 2008 - 13:03 ET by AgnosticActually at one time in the planning for port security this was covered as an issue. The plan was to install detectors that measured radiation (assuming various types - alpha, beta, gamma) in each port. However, with a suitcase bomb you could run a fishing boat in some circumlocutionary route and get close enough to a major port city to cause a great deal of damage without ever coming close to a port. My guess would be that the concentration is in finding the bombs more than preventing entry.
Agnostic, the suitcase nukes
July 1, 2008 - 13:19 ET by bassndudeAgnostic, the suitcase nukes or the backpack nukes have a relative low yields. In theory, they could pack up to 20KT into one, but it would be the size of about 2 foot lockers. The ones most folks worry about yeild from .8 to 1 KT. Nagasaki yeild was about 20 KT.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bass,
July 2, 2008 - 05:20 ET by AgnosticThanks for the information. To be honest I do not know how to translate those numbers into actual damage potential because my experience is more in the generation of nuclear power. However, as you are well aware, terrorism is not about the ability to destroy it is about the ability to influence societal change through the use of terror. A few relatively small conventional bombs in Spain caused enough damage to instill a fear in the people and government to change their entire policy on the WOT. I don't like to believe that this could happen in the US or the UK but we have many allies that very important that may be swayed by such an attack into stopping trade with the US. Imagine no oil or natural gas from one or both of our geographical neighbors and you can see the economic impact.
This is one of the things that I believe the leadership in the terrorist groups may have learned - the US will not tolerate a direct militant attack but can be attacked many ways indirectly and our political infighting will keep us neutered.
Storming Intrepid
July 2, 2008 - 06:17 ET by UnsaneNo, this is hardly a contest of ideas, but you seem very concerned about the potential of nuclear terrorism to the exclusion of the rest of the spectrum of threats.
Yes, I have my concerns about nuclear terrorism, but I am wise enough to know that the nuclear threat isn't fully encapsulated in the novel Storming Intrepid. North Korea for instance DOES have nukes and has fired missiles into the Pacific over Japanese airspace. Now, who knows if one of those weapons could hit, say, Honolulu or Anchorage? I'm not eager to sit around and wait to find out when we could in fact prevent that from happening.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Aaaah.... Been to Barking
June 30, 2008 - 23:06 ET by BDAaaah.... Been to Barking Sands.... Loved it.
If you are just an observer, life is GOOD.
Salt Pond Beach
July 1, 2008 - 16:29 ET by Del DolemonteSalt Pond Beach nearby is one of the island's best kept secrets.
Interestingly enough, nearby is also the ruins of a "Russian fort", dating back to when a crazy Russian guy actually tried to take over the Hawaiian Islands. The story is much more interesting than the remains, however.
Del, I spent an afternoon
July 2, 2008 - 10:08 ET by BDDel, I spent an afternoon at the Russian Fort, and you are right, it was a letdown.
But the Black Sand beach about 200 yards away that was totally secluded was worth every second of trip. I was suprised more people did not know about it.
I just wonder if Pop Tech
June 30, 2008 - 18:54 ET by mandrakeI just wonder if Pop Tech will chime in with anything to say about this? As this sites resident computer modeling expert, he would know that the fatal flaw that exists in mathematical climate prediction models also exists in missile defense models. (from a computer science perspective)
Let's live test!
July 1, 2008 - 02:37 ET by UnsaneWhich is why we need to live test missile defense. How awesome would that be?
Who knows, we might be able to extend that protection to the Canadians. :-)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
This is excellent
June 30, 2008 - 18:59 ET by bigtimerThis is excellent news...
Now on the other hand if this test had failed...all of the networks would of reported this.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
In The Past
June 30, 2008 - 20:44 ET by Del DolemonteSeveral of these tests in Hawaii have in fact failed. Which just goes to disprove the Left's allegations that all such tests are "rigged" to succeed.
And yes, those failures WERE widely reported.
Evening Del... Just
June 30, 2008 - 20:46 ET by bigtimerEvening Del...
Just wanted to say that was my point, I know some have failed...you know why...the MSM cannot wait to report it.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Del:Many years ago I was
July 1, 2008 - 01:34 ET by BDDel:
Many years ago I was at WSMR during a THAAD Test going against a ICBM surrogate that I think was called a Hera.
Mostly techies were out in the predawn air with us as we watched them get theintercepter ready. I did not really have a purpose at the event so I could sit and watch all the fun.
When that thing fired I nearly jumped out of my skin as it corkscrewed up. I was ceratin the missile was going to do a "V2" as we have seen in all the history channel shows and I really expected it to come right back smack down to the ground - hopefully well away from us.
When that interceptor did the metal to metal contact with the Hera, man you would have thought all those PHD's and Engineers had just won the Superbowl, NCAA Div I championships, and the presidency all rolled into one. Best fireworks display ever.
Another successful missle
June 30, 2008 - 22:18 ET by Free StinkerAnother successful missle test!
Now if we could just keep the Airborne LASER funded . . .