Battle Of Science vs. Religion Resumes In 'Physics Today': My Published Response To A Religionist

   First, some preliminaries.

 Physics Today - which celebrated its 70th anniversary last month - is the first interdisciplinary journal of the American Institute of Physics. It was conceived as a "bold experiment - a magazine that would help unify an increasingly balkanized discipline".    But calling PT a "magazine" doesn't do it service. It was in fact more a generic answer to increasing subject specialization in physics. In other words, a publication where physicists from all physics disciplines could go to share their sundry insights and discoveries. Indeed, as described in the article commemorating the founding ('The Origins Of Physics Today', May, p. 32) we learn:

"In a groundbreaking move, the AIP leadership proposed the institute launch its own publication rather than merely acquire journals from its member societies"

In other words, it was the AIP's own journal, directed to the goal of fostering unity among physicists and their societies.

 In many ways this has been accomplished, with only a few major divergences in the community, such as during the Reagan 'Star Wars' (SDI) era in the 80s when many of us wanted no part of promoting a military boondoggle we knew couldn't work. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2018/03/jay-keyworth-godfather-of-missile.html

As noted therein (quoting physicist Wolfgang Panofsky):

"There exists at this time no technical basis that justifies expanding research and technology programs in ballistic missile defense beyond a program of limited experimentation ...and studies of an objective rather than promotional manner."


But other conflicts in the physics community have sometimes occurred when one or more religionists send in missives or commentaries to suggest science and religion need to work more closely together, or be more accommodating to each other (usually framed that science isn't accommodating enough to religion).   By "religionists" here I mean anyone who promotes such accommodation - not necessarily that he himself is a religiously inclined person or indeed, worships a deity at all.

Such was the case when a religionist named Tom McLeish, based at Durham University in the UK, tried to make a case that science and religion are not really in conflict and that we should really emphasize the "surprisingly deep and constructive mutual engagement of science and religious belief."  For many physicists  (nearly 90 percent of whom accept no deity) this was the equivalent of an invader to a dinner party dropping a turd into a punch bowl. No lie.

His full commentary ('Thinking Differently About Science and Religion") can be read at this link:

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3831

This was published in the January issue of the magazine, and among the first responses to appear publicly was from a fellow physicist, Jerry Coyne, e.g.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2018/02/02/tom-mcleish-continues-his-accommodationism-in-physics-today/

Excerpt:

"The author of this accommodationist screed is Tom McLeish, professor of physics at Durham University, whose work is supported by Templeton). We’ve met him before—when I criticized his Conversation essay on exactly the same topic. Templeton is sure getting its money’s worth out of the guy! His arguments are the same as before, so I needn’t reprise them in detail."

"Templeton" here refers to the John Templeton Foundation now doing its level best to co-opt many scientists into writing specious tracts to support religious accommodation. Fortunately, most hard science practitioners are like me, and have no use for this nonsense. See e.g.  cosmologist Sean Carroll's take here:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/05/i_won_t_take_money_from_templeton_science_and_religion_can_t_be_reconciled.html


My own reply to McLeish was published in the June issue of  Physics Today (p. 12) and follows below. In Part II I will address his retorts to my letter, and why and how he is off base:

---

As I see it, the most fundamental split—an irreparable one—between science and religion is that religion embraces a supernatural order and genuine science, as opposed to pseudoscience, does not.

From a scientific and objective standpoint, there is simply no way that any purportedly supernatural entity or order can be demonstrated or proven. No scientific methodologies for such exist, nor any credible instruments or measuring techniques. The rejoinder that those things can't be measured merely reinforces the argument that they are no more fit for scientific inquiry than the astrologer’s claim of “malefic” influences of Mars at an infant’s birth.

Because a supernatural domain cannot be approached in any scientific or objective way, then by my reckoning it doesn't exist. One need not even deny its existence because to all intents the supernatural entity becomes logically unnecessary or redundant. It doesn't help us make scientific predictions or explain natural phenomena—say, coronal mass ejections or auroral substorms. Any doubt about the possibility of knowing something must be vastly multiplied for the supernatural domain.

Pope Francis, while he acknowledges Darwinian evolution, is still not prepared to accept the wholly naturalistic process dependent on natural selection—mutation. Instead we read, “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve,” and “He [God] created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws [emphasis added] that He gave to each one so they would ready fulfillment.¹ However, if the role of random evolutionary forces is neglected and the creation of “souls” is given prominence, then the door of inquiry is left open to supernatural agents.

To a genuine scientist—whether biologist, chemist, or physicist—that ought to be totally, emphatically unacceptable because it basically thumbs its nose at true scientific inquiry.

In my article “The God factor” in the March 1990 issue of Astronomy magazine, I point out that science selectively excludes problems for which no practical method of inquiry exists. The supernatural falls into that category: It is neither measurable nor verifiable. Such an entity is regarded as an “uncaused cause,” but as mathematician John Allen Paulos noted, “If everything has a cause, then God must too, and there is no first cause.”   Eliminating a first cause—that is, supernatural cause—eliminates the need to posit a realm populated by supernatural beings that can supposedly interact with our world.

What McLeish asks us to do is to look the other way as we embrace a faith-based system, which may occasionally be correct about one scientific discovery or another but nonetheless accepts superstition at its core. Worse, a faith-based system beckons us to give a pass as it upholds a domain for which there isn’t a scintilla of evidence, and in which agents and dogmas can be invoked in detrimental ways anytime a religion decides—for example, in condemning artificial birth control or outlawing abortion.

Is it possible for religion and science to coexist? Possibly, but only if religion is diluted to the point that it’s devoid of all supernatural memes, agents, and explanations. Otherwise, all bets are off and we are left with embracing glorified superstition, and a deleterious form at that, able to use its fantasy agents to subvert objective human inquiry.

                                                                                                                   Philip A. Stahl
                                                                                        American Astronomical Society

References

1. N. Squires, “Pope Francis says Big Bang theory and evolution 'compatible with divine Creator’ ” Telegraph, 28 October 2014.

2. J. A. Paulos, Irreligion, Hill & Wang Books, 2008, p. 43.

The Godfather of Missile Defense Snake Oil: Jay Keyworth

Missile interceptor being loaded near Ft. Greeley, Alaska.

It is absolutely incredible that even nearly 30 years after one of the most devastating exposures of a "white elephant": the  SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) of Reagan and Jay Keyworth- we can still see articles, editorials and even obituaries praising the latter.   The devastating exposure of the missile defense con I refer to appeared in the May, 1987 issue of Physics Today and was entitled "APS Directed Energy Weapons Study (Executive Summary)".   It subsequently appeared in other journals, including the Reviews Of Modern Physics, e.g.

https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.59.S1


The study basically took apart the SDI  piece by piece  with no fewer than 26 major  deficiencies identified on everything from the weaknesses of the proposed lasers to shoot down the incoming missiles (too weak by several orders of magnitude) to the problem of identifying the targets "at sub-micro-radian resolution"  in the boost phase  to "lack of precision tracking via active sensor systems" and the ease with which any missile  interceptor design can easily be thwarted, say by use of dispersal of million of reflecting, metallic decoys. 

Even two years earlier, in an article  appearing in the June, 1985 issue of Physics Today (p. 34, 'The Strategic Defense Initiative Perception Vs, Reality'), the SDI was dismissed as a "political PR promotion scheme".  In other words, it was created purely to pump up defense budgets and enrich all those contractors who'd be manufacturing the components of this farce. As the author (Wolfgang Panofsky) pointed out:

"What is frightening at this time is the blatant salesmanship, which does not focus on SDI';s military merits but which appeals to economic self interest."

Adding:

"There exists at this time no technical basis that justifies expanding research and technology programs in ballistic missile defense beyond a program of limited experimentation ...and studies of an objective rather than promotional manner."

Never mind, as recently as Sept.6, 2017, the WSJ featured an editorial (p. A14) headed:

"The Godfather of Missile Defense"

Wherein we read: 

"Reagan believed the Cold War needed to end, and part of his strategy for ending it was developing a technology to shoot down missiles in flight. It is hard to overstate the derision that greeted Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983. The day after Reagan announced the SDI, Sen. Ted Kennedy mocked the President's "reckless Star Wars scheme".

 

Used relentlessly by the press to describe SDI, the Star Wars name stuck, and Jay Keyworth's job was to convince skeptics that Reagan's idea of shooting down missiles in flight wasn't Hollywood science fiction..... To his credit and the country's good fortune, Jay Keyworth was tireless in publicly supporting the effort as scientifically achievable.

It eventually gave us systems like THAAD which can effectively intercept short and medium range ballistic missiles and is now deployed on the Korean peninsula."

 

Now, let's back up a bit and try to unpack this blizzard of codswallop. First, the derision and mock name of "Star Wars" attributed to the SDI  by Ted Kennedy was justly deserved. The APS Directed Energy Weapons study proved it was deserved.  Besides, think about this for a second: IF that system was genuine and featured high falutin' systems equipped with high powered lasers to zap incoming ICBMs, why don't we see any aspect of it used now?  Well, because no workable system ever existed in the first place! It was a big sell job!

Second, the system that has emerged- THAAD -  has only been "successful" because of GPS finder beacons attached to the warheads of the dummy targets. This is the hard fact none of the pointy headed cheerleaders will tell you.  We've actually known about this tomfoolery or fakery the past 17 years or so.  Reuters was the only news agency that got wind of the initial 'Defense Week' story back then  and revealed the fix. The wire service quoted a Pentagon official who "conceded that real warheads in an attack would not carry such helpful beacons". Gee thanks much, Roscoe! I'm sure I'll sleep better at night now, supposing maybe you guys secretly planted beacons on the North Korean warheads.

Additionally, another aspect the mainstream press seldom mentions is that in the case of an actual attack by  a sophisticated enemy multiple decoys would be deployed to fool sensors.    This was first noted by Wolfgang Panofsky in his monograph, Particles and Policy, Chapter 'Mad vs. Nuts') wherein he observed that any U.S. missile defense system - semi-practical or otherwise- will spur numerous counter measures and fully offensive nuclear systems. THIS is the stark danger we face.

Hence, Vladimir Putin's recent bragging (WSJ, Mar. 2, p. A8) of the Russians possessing a "super" nuclear rocket "capable of evading or penetrating limited U.S. antimissile defenses."  Maybe Putin's brain trust hasn't told him yet that he didn't need to spend an extra ruble to do that -  since the existing system is easily penetrated given it needs GPS beacons to hit the targets. (Putin claimed Russia had developed nuclear -powered cruse missiles that could actually reach Mach 10 speeds.)

 

But therein lies the danger: The massive destabilizing of the current marginal nuclear balance. Panofsky himself believed that missile shields and the like were basically 'white elephants' from the get go because the physical problem of intercepting a ballistic missile is literally like hitting a bullet with another bullet - and essentially just as likely.. He was strongly convinced a better plan was to work toward mutual reduction in missile forces with monitoring to ensure compliance.

 

Getting back to Jay Keyworth, if he merits any kudos it was for doing a sell job worthy of the late P.T. Barnum - featured in the recent movie, 'The Greatest Showman'.  Given the yarns and BS Keyworth had to spin to get Reagan to plow wasted billions into the SDI white elephant, well you get the idea. 

 

Now with Trump we learn even bigger wastes of money are planned (Denver Post, Dc. 17, p. 13A, 'Trump Moves To Boost Missile Defense System'). We learn, specifically:

"Immediate plans call for building two $ 1 billion radar installations and adding 20 rocket interceptors to the 44 deployed in underground silos in Fort Greeley in Alaska and Vandenburg Air Force Base in California. ....The expected cost is about $10.2 billion over five years on top of more than $40 billion already spent for the system."

But we also learn in the piece:

"But government reports and interviews with technical experts suggest the planned upgrades, including a redesigned kill vehicle, are unlikely to protect the United States from a limited-scale ballistic missile attack - the system's stated mission."

Which is totally in line with Wolfgang Panofsky's skeptical take in his book, Particles and Policy.   It appears as though there is a fundamental flaw in the wiring of human brains which causes them to continually believe the same erroneous crap despite all evidence to the contrary that they work. Thus,  whether it's tax cuts or missile defense systems - these "zombie" ideas live on and are repeatedly resurrected, say as revealed in the Matt Miller  book, 'The Tyranny of Dead Ideas'.

In the latest iteration, we have an unworkable system (well, unless "beacons" are put into target vehicles to give interceptors a 'heads up') that is in fact an "upgrade" of an already bad idea.

Jay Keyworth the 'Godfather of Missile Defense"? Well, more like the Godfather of  wasteful spending in the billions on a series of missile defense white elephants - starting with SDI and now with THAAD.

Calling Bunkum On That Missile Defense Test

Ground-based interceptor missile at Fort Greeley, AK. 36 such interceptors are based in silos in California and Alaska.  For the recent test the interceptor was fired from Vandenburg AFB, CA.

We're expected to believe that the Pentagon completed a successful interception of a target ICBM yesterday, "for the first time".  In the words of correspondent David Martin on CBS this morning:

"Since North Korea has said it is finishing work on an intercontinental ballistic missile, this was an important demonstration that the U.S. has the capability, at least under test conditions, to shoot down an incoming ICBM."

Note that I have highlighted the key words, "under test conditions". What were those conditions? Or, more accurately, the primary "test condition"? Martin doesn't say and neither do any other mainstream media sources. We're all simply led to believe the completion of this test was, according to the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, that "the kill vehicle intercepted and destroyed the target in a direct collision". In other words, like a bullet hitting another bullet.

Well, not quite - more like a bullet hitting another bullet loaded with a sensor.

In this case, the interceptor missile fired from Vandenburg was carrying a global positioning satellite beacon that guided the kill vehicle toward it.  In other words, this illustrious test was rigged and certainly not fooling anyone - especially the N. Koreans. A $244 m test  three years in the planning, if you can believe it.

As far back as July 14, 2001, the Pentagon confirmed the role of the GPS beacon device in missile tests for Defense Week magazine. But then, as now, the 'Defense Week' scoop was ignored by the mainstream media. Why? Why aren't we allowed to know the truth that none of these missile tests are true demonstrations of an ICBM kill?

Instead, we're led to accept we'll be safe if the North Koreans fire an A-bomb Mirved missile at us, never mind their missile won't have any target giveaway "beacons" on them. 

In the case of the initial revelation 16 years ago, Reuters was the only news agency that got wind of the 'Defense Week' story  and revealed the fix. The wire service quoted a Pentagon official who "conceded that real warheads in an attack would not carry such helpful beacons". Gee thanks much, Roscoe! I'm sure I'll sleep better at night now.

Additionally, another aspect the mainstream press seldom mentions. is that in the case of an actual attack by  a sophisticated enemy multiple decoys would be deployed to fool sensors. 

The worst part isn't the  "missile defense" rigging, but that others  may bite and think it is feasible and a very REAL threat. This is the point made by Wolfgang Panofsky in his monograph, Particles and Policy, Chapter 'Mad vs. Nuts') wherein he observes that any U.S. missile defense system - practical or otherwise- will spur numerous counter measures and fully offensive nuclear systems. THIS is the stark danger we face.

The ultimate effect being to massively destabilize the nuclear balance. Panofsky himself believed that missile shields and the like were basically 'white elephants' from the get go because the physical problem of intercepting a ballistic missile is literally like hitting a bullet with another bullet - or essentially highly improbable.. He was strongly convinced a better plan was to work toward mutual reduction in missile forces with monitoring to ensure compliance.

Fortunately for us, most serious estimates put the North Koreans at least five years from having a nuclear warhead deliverable ICBM - and I will look at this in more detail in a future post. If that is so, then our illustrious defenders at least have some time to get their act together and complete a genuine intercept test  - minus the GPS satellite beacon. One truly hopes they can do it.

'White Elephant' Missile Defense Undermines Strategic Defense

Ground-based interceptor missile at Fort Greeley, AK. Despite a $40 b price tag the system has yet to prove its efficacy.

As I noted in a post from four and a half years ago, missile defense systems are basically Rube Goldberg schemes that don't work and only deplete resources while undermining strategic defense capabilities. This may be perhaps why JFK back in August, 1963, signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty which also scrapped ABM systems. (One reason most sober historians ceased thinking of him as a "cold warrior")

Thirty years ago we had  Reagan's useless and wasteful Strategic Defense Initiative, otherwise known as   "Star Wars" which was as stupid as Bush Junior's idiotic "national missile defense" program from fourteen years ago. (Of which this new system is really a makeover holdover- displaced to Europe). The fact is that none of these missile systems-shields really work, as particle physicist Wolfgang Panofsky first noted in his articulate chapter 'MAD vs. Nuts' in Particles and Policy (American Institute of Physics, 1994).

But the worst part isn't the  "missile defense" unworkability, but that others (e.g. Russians) may bite and think it is feasible and a very REAL threat. This is the point made by Wolfgang Panofsky in his monograph, Particles and Policy, Chapter 'Mad vs. Nuts') wherein he observes that any U.S. missile defense system - practical or otherwise- will spur numerous counter measures and fully offensive nuclear systems. THIS is the stark danger we face!

The ultimate effect being to massively destabilize the nuclear balance. Panofsky himself believed that missile shields and the like were basically 'white elephants' from the get go because the physical problem of intercepting a ballistic missile was like hitting a bullet with another bullet. He was strongly convinced a better plan was to work toward mutual reduction in missile forces with monitoring to ensure compliance.

The recent missile defense experiment appears to vindicate his worries, and shows the current Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system to be a huge boondoggle.  This system on paper is designed to protect all 50 states, say from a possible North Korean ICBM attack in 10-15 years. But the results thus far are not encouraging.   Since the end of the Clinton administration there have been a total of 17 tests pitting one of the missiles against a defined target whose launch and trajectory were already known.  The GMD system operators failed to destroy the targets in nine of the tests according to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists. And this was despite the fact they knew ahead of time when and where the target missile would be launched, its precise dimensions, expected trajectory and velocity.

Since the initial GMD system was installed at Fort Greeley, AK and Vandenburg AFB, CA, the Missile Defense Agency has performed nine tests with only three successful in destroying their targets. Despite those dismal results the MDA currently fields 26 interceptors in AK and 4 at Vandenburg, and plans to install 14 more despite a record of failure that's worsened over time.

More distressing, the GMD's track record, deplorable as it is, masks the fact that the tests don't remotely match what would happen in real world encounters.  As Panofsky even observed nearly 30 years ago, any nation capable of launching a long range missile would also be able to equip it with decoys and other countermeasures that  could foil the GMD system. Panofsky showed Reagan's old 'SDI' system was easily foiled by an ICBM capable of deploying thousands of  brilliant reflecting objects and dispersing them - as mock targets.   As Panofsky stated in his chapter 'Mad vs. Nuts'  (op. cit.):

"it is always and invariably more cost effective to defeat any given missile shield system than to defend against an array of offensive missiles."

 This was a major reason  that the  Reagan 'Star Wars' bunkum had to be scuttled (according to an American Physical Society study done ca. 1987) , i.e. the then Soviets were becoming adept at "being able to implant millions of metallic fragments in their missile nose cones for deployment in the boost phase"

There is no reason the North Koreans wouldn't be able to do the same, say ten or so years from now with an ICBM potential.

All of this was pointed out by analysts from the UCS and MIT more than 17 years ago, and as UCS senior scientist Laura Grego (echoing Wolfgang Panofsky) has said:

"The Missile Defense Agency is trying to do something akin to hitting a bullet with another bullet which has proven difficult enough to do under simplified, scripted conditions".

The whole mess was really seeded as a boondoogle when Bush & Co, way back in 2002, started this stupid program and decided to exempt it from standard Pentagon oversight procedures- insisting on fielding it within two years. The results were predictable, running up the program's price tag  - now over $40 billion - while delivering a white elephant that has never been shown to work under real world conditions.

Laura Grego again (Bulletin of UCS, Summer 2016, p. 16):

'More than ten years after it was first fielded, the GMD system still hasn't faced the kinds of conditions that would be faced in the real world."

Nevertheless (ibid.) the  "Obama administration steadfastly maintains the GMD system is ready for prime time, or at least the threat of future, hypothetical  Iranian or North Korean long range missiles."

Brian P. McKeon, principal undersecretary of defense for policy, even told the Senate Armed Services committee earlier this year that "the US homeland is currently protected against such attacks."

Of course, this is codswallop and PR if no testing evidence even exists to support the claim. But that elicits the question of how the Pentagon even ended up with such a dysfunctional program. Like other national missteps - including the NSA violating 4th amendment rights with its MUSCULAR, Xkeyscore programs - this one dates back to the aftermath of 9/11 when national security hysteria reigned.

In such an atmosphere Congress passed the Patriot Act and the Bushies used their single -minded focus on security and "bad guys" (the "Axis of Evil") to kick start the embryonic GMD program.  At the same time, the Bushies withdrew the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. That Treaty had prohibited both sides from implementing a missile defense system to protect its entire territory.  As the UCS Bulletin puts it p. 17):

"This then opened the door for then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to exempt the Missile Defense agency from standard procurement rules and testing standards in order to deploy a system within two years. That proved to be a Herculean and impractical task."

The move also removed any financial accountability for the program and the Pentagon. This after defense analyst noted as far back as 2002 that it still can't account for a missing $1.2 trillion in defense monies.   Compared to the Pentagon's testing of the Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile (6 times a year, acing more than 150 tests) the testing of the GMD system is a joke.  As noted by the UCS (ibid.):

"Nearly 15 years after the GMD system was put on the fast track, the Pentagon's own testing officials have said the system has not demonstrated operationally useful capability to defend the U.S. public from a missile attack."

In other words, contradicting Brian P. McKeon's and the Obama administration's own claims.  But one go one better, noting that back in 2010 the Obama-ites insisted the GMD system would "dissuade Iran and North Korea from developing an intercontinental ballistic missile".  But 6 years later both are continuing to develop their missile technology and many physicists expect the North Koreans to have that capacity within 10-15 years.

And again, echoing the concerns of  physicist Wolfgang Panofsky (op. cit.) the UCS Bulletin observes:

"What's more, the belief that the system can block an attack introduces another layer of risk, since it might make the United States more likely to opt for a military solution in an international crisis before exhausting diplomatic ones."

 All of this in tandem has meant that the nuclear "doomsday clock" of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists remains firmly at 3 minutes to midnight - midnight being when all hell breaks loose. 

See e.g.

http://thebulletin.org/timeline

Excerpt:

'The probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon.' That probability has not been reduced. The Clock ticks. Global danger looms. Wise leaders should act—immediately." See the full statement from the Science and Security Board on the 2016 time of the Doomsday Clock."

Russian Angst Increases Over U.S. "Missile Defense" Plan

The recent words of a Russian Defense Minister (Denver Post, May 25), to the effect that the Russians will have to double or treble their existing nuclear missile warhead capacity to neutralize the planned U.S.-NATO missile shield for eastern Europe is certainly grounds for serious worry. To be sure, it has the makings of a new nuclear arms race just as we were making progress in removing warheads and disassembling missiles in the former USSR. And for what? Well, for no good reason!

As I noted in earlier blogs, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/as-noted-before-missile-shield-is-waste.html

This proposed shield, which is planned by NATO (Why does this anachronism even exist any more? The only plausible reason is to act as a buffer or cover for U.S. militarist actions.) would be completed in four phases by 2021  and the cover story or PR is that "it's meant to counter a potential threat from Iran". Trouble is, the system - which uses Aegis radar systems and interceptors on ships- is set up right on Russia' border in nearby Poland. Since the Russkies kept their side of the deal and expedited the dissolution of The Warsaw Pact (the putative counter to NATO in the Cold War Years), the U.S. - despite warning from expert Russianologists, has made ever more pacts with former Russian satellites and expanded NATO to Russia's doorstep. This is stupid, ill-conceived.

Indeed, one can't blame the Russians for their mounting paranoia that the system allegedly to be used to stop Iranian missiles is really designed to undermine Moscow's nuclear deterrent.. As one Russian minister observed, obviously it would be of use since (irrespective of the claimed purpose) it "would give the West the ability to shoot down Russian missiles in situ" (WSJ, 'Moscow Raises Alarm Over Missile-Defense Plan for Europe', May 4, p. A14). Thus, the Russians rightly worry that the proximity of this system to their border gives the U.S. an excellent opportunity to down Russian missiles in the boost phase.  If this idea catches on, and there's good reason it can, one can pardon the Russians for believing the U.S. is setting up for a first-strike capability.

In his book 'Particles and Policy', physicist Wolfgang Panofksy pointed out the only true system of security for Russia and the U.S. was MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction. Thus, it became an axiom that neither nation would do anything to jeapordize the stability ensured by MAD using reckless moves which might be interpreted to seeking to gain leverage in the MAD world.

The objective truth is that this proposed missile system is merely a destabilizer with absolutely no known benefit. Even the Poles, who are destined to house one or more systems have gone on record to state that any such system isn't needed. Stefan Niesiolowski, chairman of the defense committee in the Polish Lower House of Parliament pointedly observed such a missile system is not needed in Poland. As he pointed out ('Missile Gaffe Leaves Europen Unfazed', WSJ, April 22,  p. A8):

"There's no military threat and we haven't had a situation as secure as this in 300 years. The level of U.S. military engagement in Poland therefore is not of top importance."

Then WHY do it?

The answer is simple: the military -industrial complex ensconced in the U.S. wants to invent ever more specious reasons to piss away ever more billions of our taxpayer dollars. (Which is also why they want to have 30,000 unmanned drones airborne by 2015, since Afghanistan use is winding down). THEN...the deficit hawks can pick up the yelp to cut social programs because of all the deficits created by "entitlements". Except they aren't caused by "entitlements" but by: a) unpaid for Bush tax cuts and b) wasteful military spending!

While a Report by the Defense Science Board issued last year speculates that "there are no fundamental roadblocks to the system", it then monkey-wrenched the claim by elaborating profound problems with the system including cost overruns (which, of course, the defense contractors love).  Meanwhile, former Pentagon nuclear weapons' tester Philip Coyle  warned that the issues raised in the Report "would require substantial and costly changes, if they can be surmounted at all:"


As for Panofsky, he makes it clear in his chapter 'MAD vs. NUTS', that no such missile shield systems are in any way practical or feasible. And even if by some serendipity they temporarily were,  a determined adversary could easily find the means to neutralize the system- as Russia proposed to do with Reagan's 'Star Wars' by having missiles deploy thousands of metallic fragments as decoys.

Russia, for its part, rightfully demands a legally binding guarantee that the system won't be used against it. But the U.S. asserts (ibid.) "it can't agree to formal limits on missile defense".

Oh really? Then why should the Russians believe the system isn't really designed to be used against them? Again, the U.S. miltarists - driven by Paul Nitzke's feral document NSC -68  (mandating empire building)  end up putting their feet into their mouths, and at the same time possibly detracting from global nuclear security for all of us, if the Russians increase the megatonnage of their warheads in response.

The ironic aspect of it all, as Morris Berman notes (Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire, W.W. Norton, page 118) is:

"Nitze emphasized the importance of perception, arguing that how we were seen was as crucial as how militarily secure we actually were. This rapidly expanded the number of interests deemed relevant to national security”.

Of course, the US of A has no patent on such perceptions, and if the Russians also believe they're entitled to theirs, they can be forgiven for taking steps to thwart the deployment of a missile shield embodied in U.S. "perceptions" of self-interest. Especially given the shield is to be set up right under their noses!

DO We Need A Missile Defense System in E. Europe? NO!

As the pundit gasbags on the Right continue to bloviate about Obama's "missile gaffe" (arising from an open mic in a recent meeting with Russian President Dimitry Medvedev, all sorts of conspiracy theories are being churned out. One (from Romney) implies our prez made some secret, slimey deal with the "Reds" that compromises national security. At least a few sane voices, mostly drowned out, observe (correctly) that there's nothing sinister at all, and Obama was simply delivering a stark political assessment. That is, given the nature of Reep-fomented gridlock in Washington, it's highly unlikely any new policies, or legislation or treaties will be passed before the elections in November.

But all of this bloviation and punditry overlooks the larger point: that the need for any "missile defense shield" in eastern Europe (mainly based in Romania and Poland) is as empty and bankrupt of value as the Reagan "Star Wars" bullshit of 25 years ago, and as stupid as Bush Junior's idiotic "national missile defense" system from ten years ago. (Of which this new system is really a makeover holdover- displaced to Europe). The fact is that none of these missile systems-shields really works, as particle physicist Wolfgang Panofsky first noted in his articulate chapter 'MAD vs. Nuts' in Particles and Policy (American Institute of Physics, 1994).

No such system has yet been devised (other than the limited "Patriot" batteries used in the 1990-91 Gulf War) that consistently can take down incoming missiles. (The Patriots worked about 50% of the time 'cause they were mainly going up against the crappy Iraqi SCUD missiles). In nearly every instance, as Panofsky points out, you are merely injecting a de-stabilizing force into a situation, and also one which - technologically - is always easily defeatable by appropriate counter-measures (which invariably are cheaper to employ that the measures that the anti-missile requires to nullify them!)

Even Stefan Niesiolowski, chairman of the defense committee in the Polish Lower House of Parliament has noted such a missile system is not needed in Poland. As he points out ('Missile Gaffe Leaves Europen Unfazed', WSJ, today, p. A8):

"There's no military threat and we haven't had a situation as secure as this in 300 years. The level of U.S. military engagement in Poland therefore is not of top importance."

WOW! No military threat? Then WHY do it?

The answer is simple: the military -industrial complex ensconced in the U.S. wants to invent ever more specious reasons to piss away ever more billions of our taxpayer dollars. And just like "Star Wars' and Bush's stupid system before it (where 11 of 12 intercept attempts failed and the only one that worked relied on a radiofrequency beam attached to the target missile), this Missile shield redux won't work either. Thus, it boils down entirely to monetary waste (for taxpayers) coupled with astounding extra profits for defense contractors and pork for congressional leeches. These are the sole purposes of this so-called "missile shield", which in the end, likely wouldn't shield the Poles or Romanians or anyone else from a raft of giant boulders fired by ancient Roman catapults.

Apart from that, the notion of Iranian missiles being lobbed into eastern Europe is totally ignorant. This is something that some moron brain stormer in the Pentagon would have dreamed up hoping the typical American would bite. First, Iran - even assuming it does possess enough quality IRBMs or ICBMs (say of a level comparable to the U.S. Titan I shown) wouldn't waste them on Eastern Europe! Second, they'd know in a heartbeat any such daft attack would be met with devastating counterforce, and maybe even tactical nukes. In a word, they'd be risking their own extermination.

Third, given these manifestly obvious reasons (and the fact that for such anti-missile systems to really work they need to nail the targets in the boost phase as Panofksy observes) the only conclusion left is that they're not really directed against "Iranian missiles" at all but against putative Russian missiles. THIS is why the Russians are eager to get this farce shut down, because they view such a shield as a threat to them. They interpret the shield as an effort by NATO-U.S. forces to neutralize any possible Russian attack, say if hostilities did erupt over Iran. (See the movie 'Threads' in a previous blog, i.e
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/03/anxious-to-start-war-with-iran-see-this.html

Add to that the historical fact - which clearly escapes the U.S. military-industrial complex- that the Russians have been highly paranoid of any military activity around their borders since the time of Peter the Great, and you have a made for demolition derby on the international scene. One that any knowledgeable Russian observer will assert that will not be tolerated by the Russians no matter how many "security" or "shield participation" PR bones get tossed their way.
This is why Ellen Tauscher, Obama's envoy for Strategic Stability and Missile Defense is dreaming when she claims (ibid.) that "the U.S. is seeking to get Russia inside the missile defense tent now".

This will not happen, not now or ever, because quite bluntly the Russkies do not see missile "defense" as a tent but as a THREAT! And there is no amount of diplomacy or whatever..that will convince them otherwise.

The best thing for the Obamanites therefore, is to drop this idea entirely, and tell the Pentagon and MIC to stuff it where the Sun doesn't shine. Don't even remotely consider using this as some form of political policy leverage vs. the always ready for war and increased defense -spending Repugs. They will ALWAYS want more military spending for any and everything - from missile shields, to more Mideast bases, to combat air brigades in Colo., to another 2,800 F-35s - in order to bleed down domestic tax revenues to enhance and justify their demand for deficit hawkism and austerity!

The worst part isn't the alleged "missile defense" unworkability, but that others (e.g. Russians) may bite and think it is feasible and a very REAL threat. This is the point made by Wolfgang Panofsky in his monograph, Particles and Policy, Chapter 'Mad vs. Nuts') wherein he observes that any U.S. missile defense system - practical or otherwise- will spur numerous counter measures and fully offensive nuclear systems. THIS is the stark danger we face!

The ultimate effect being to massively destablize the nuclear balance. Perhaps this is why the 'nuclear clock' (which gives a metaphor to the proximity of nuclear holocaust) has moved a full minute forward since the Bushites pushed the original missile shield. (See The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,Vol. 59, No. 6, 'Neocons: The Men Behind the Curtain', p. 62)

This is even more reason for Obama not to fall into the same snare.

Bottom line: we don't need a phoney-baloney, pork-program 'missile shield' that will only enrich the defense contractors, destabilize geo-politics and alienate long term allies. What we need is what I've said many times before: building security from the ground up, by people to people transactions, and engaging serious talks on dismantling remnants of Cold war nuclear warheads (especially in the former Soviet states) and rational settlements as opposed to political pandering.

Anything else is really just a deflection and distraction from the more important tasks and objectives, which lays a destabilizing groundwork we don't need, period. It is time to tell the military welfare queens (including the congress critters who stand to reap the pork benefits) behind this Rube Goldberg scheme to piss off.