Small Omission
The latest missile defense test failure has invited a cheap shot from the New York Times editorial page yesterday.
Using phrases like "unproven technologies," "dream stage," and "hollow defense" the Times bludgeons us with how disastrous the program has been. One might guess from the editorial that we are years away from getting the technology to work right once. I'm willing to bet no such opinions were found in the news July 15, 2001; March 16, 2002; October 14, 2002; or December 11, 2003, when the interceptor rockets did destroy their targets.
Some Americans might think the previous successes provide some context to yesterday's failure. The Times thinks they are unimportant details.
What is perhaps more extraordinary than the bias of omission is what is said in the second-to-last paragraph:
The shield may be needed, "but only after its efficacy has been proved." The Times is saying our need for the shield is dependent upon our ability to fabricate one. Let's apply this logic elsewhere: "A vaccine for AIDs may be needed, but only after its efficacy has been proved." Whether you distribute a particular vaccine should certainly depend on its effectiveness. But an ineffective vaccine does not eliminate the need for an effective one.
How many rockets never left the launch pad as the U.S. began its space program in the 50's and 60's? Per the Times, we shouldn't have had a goal to send a man to the moon until we knew how to do it, and be able to do it without any failures along the way.
The need for a shield from a rogue state like North Korea is all too real. Whether we can build an effective one before it's too late remains to be seen. But we'll never know unless we try.
If it were not for the mammoth waste of taxpayers' money, the latest failure in the Bush administration's obstinate deployment of a totally unproven missile defense system could be titled Star Wars: The Farce. Two years after ponderously scripted flight tests had to be suspended because of widespread technical gaffes, the Pentagon tried again this week - and failed again. An interceptor rocket sat inert and shut itself down when the signal was given to take off after an invader missile bearing a mock warhead out in the Pacific.
The failure, at the cost of a mere $85 million, was the latest evidence that the missile shield, a complex grafting of various unproven technologies, remains firmly in the dream stage. Yet the administration is going ahead with hollow defense plans to soon "activate" the first missile silos along the Pacific coast in a ludicrous pretense called "evolutionary acquisition." This means spend and strut now, and worry about whether it will actually work later.
Using phrases like "unproven technologies," "dream stage," and "hollow defense" the Times bludgeons us with how disastrous the program has been. One might guess from the editorial that we are years away from getting the technology to work right once. I'm willing to bet no such opinions were found in the news July 15, 2001; March 16, 2002; October 14, 2002; or December 11, 2003, when the interceptor rockets did destroy their targets.
Some Americans might think the previous successes provide some context to yesterday's failure. The Times thinks they are unimportant details.
What is perhaps more extraordinary than the bias of omission is what is said in the second-to-last paragraph:
With rogue nations like North Korea working on nuclear missiles, a credible shield may someday be needed, but only after its efficacy has been proved. As it stands now, even a Pentagon analysis rates Star Wars a "case study" on how to rush toward failure.
The shield may be needed, "but only after its efficacy has been proved." The Times is saying our need for the shield is dependent upon our ability to fabricate one. Let's apply this logic elsewhere: "A vaccine for AIDs may be needed, but only after its efficacy has been proved." Whether you distribute a particular vaccine should certainly depend on its effectiveness. But an ineffective vaccine does not eliminate the need for an effective one.
How many rockets never left the launch pad as the U.S. began its space program in the 50's and 60's? Per the Times, we shouldn't have had a goal to send a man to the moon until we knew how to do it, and be able to do it without any failures along the way.
The need for a shield from a rogue state like North Korea is all too real. Whether we can build an effective one before it's too late remains to be seen. But we'll never know unless we try.
Comments