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):
- Advertisement -
- 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
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
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
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