Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (2 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats   3 comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Four 'Missile Defense' Sites Chosen for Study

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 2/1/14

Become a Fan
  (15 fans)

GMD system
(image by DoD)

The Department of Defense, directed by Congress, is undertaking the completion of  Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for a potential additional 'Ground-based Mid-Course Missile Defense' (GMD) site in the continental United States. (The other current GMD site is located at Fort Greeley in Alaska.)

The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has decided that four sites will be evaluated.  The MDA has not yet made the decision to proceed with construction of a new missile defense site.

It is expected to take approximately 24 months to complete the EIS.  The EIS will assess environmental impacts at each of the sites, to include potential impacts to land use, water resources, air quality, transportation, socioeconomics and other factors established by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  Public involvement is supposedly encouraged as part of the process, to include public meetings, written comments and public review of the draft and final documents.

The sites selected for completion of an EIS are (in alphabetical order):
  • Camp Ravenna, Ohio
  • Fort Custer, Michigan
  • Fort Drum, New York
  • Portsmouth SERE Training Area, Maine (Rangeley)
There are several types of "missile defense" systems today.  Some are on Navy Aegis destroyers (testing quite successfully), some are deployed on Army mobile launchers, while the GMD system is based underground.  The GMD system, whose mission is to have an interceptor missile hit an "enemy" nuclear missile in deep space, has not had any real success in their testing program - many of the tests have been scripted to appear successful.


A new GMD site could cost more than $5 billion to build.  Boeing manages the GMD program while Raytheon and Orbital Sciences Corporation build the interceptors ('kill vehicles') and the rockets.

These "missile defense" systems are key elements in US first-strike attack planning.  Each year the US Space Command runs a computer war game where China and Russia are attacked with hypersonic global strike weapons that attempt to take out their nuclear capability.  After that initial attack China or Russia would attempt to fire their remaining nuclear forces at the US.  It is then that the triad of US "missile defense" systems (ship-based, mobile, and GMD) would be used to pick-off those retaliatory strikes.  One should call "missile defense" the shield that is used after the US first-strike attack sword lunges into the heart of China or Russia.  This is what the Pentagon and the Missile Defense Agency are now developing.

Maine State Rep. Andrea Boland (Sanford) told me last week that North Korea, Iran and Russia are eager to attack the US.  The liberal Democrat wants this GMD base in our state.  Better us, she told me, than someone else. I don't see it that way.  The aerospace industry in Maine wishes to expand their operations across the state....this GMD site appears to be their major effort to make a big splash.

Now is the time for public outcry against this East coast GMD site.  Activists in Maine, Ohio, Michigan and New York must speak out against the madness of US first-strike attack planning and the colossal waste of our $$$$$ at a time of austerity cuts in social spending.

In the end "missile defense" is destabilizing as it forces China and Russia to make counter-moves that are then used by the Pentagon to justify even more of these kind of programs.  New arms races are fueled by deployment of so-called "missile defense".  It truly should be called missile offense. 

 

Bruce Gagnon is the Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space.

more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT GEORGIA-RUSSIA CONFLICT?

APPEAL TO STOP NAVY BASE CONSTRUCTION ON JEJU ISLAND

TWISTED UP BY A SUPER COUP D'ETAT

U.S. LOOKING FOR A FIGHT

700 SIGN LETTER TO OBAMA OPPOSING "MISSILE DEFENSE" DEPLOYMENTS

Star Wars or Social Progress

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 people are discussing this page, with 3 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Disclaimer: I was a Star Warrior with a major def... by Richard Pietrasz on Saturday, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:12:34 PM
Everyone should read 'House of War' by James Carro... by Kevin Tully on Sunday, Feb 2, 2014 at 10:45:00 AM
The US military uses tactical weapons as if they w... by Richard Pietrasz on Sunday, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:26:33 PM