Gates Grounds the Airborne White Elephant Laser

Huffington Post by Joe Cirincione | Jul. 17, 2009 (News Report)

Under President George Bush, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates resolutely defended every dime of last year's $11 billion budget for anti-missile weapons programs. Now reporting to President Obama, who favors weapons programs that are operationally effective and affordable, he is free to say what military officials have known for years: many of these programs don't work. He has trimmed $1.6 billion from the budget and axed three of the worst projects, ... Full Story »

Posted by Dwight Rousu - via Huffington Post (Featured)

More Info

Tags Help
Subjects: U.S.
Topics: U.S. Military, U.S. Budget
Member Tags: Department of Offense
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Dwight Rousu - Jul 17, 2009 - 3:38 PM PDT
Reviewed by: Dwight Rousu (review), Tanya J. Maurer (review)
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Dwight Rousu - Jul 17, 2009 - 3:38 PM PDT

Reviews

Show All Comments
Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Dwight Rousu
4.2
 by Dwight Rousu - Jul. 17, 2009

Cirincione gets the story and explains it clearly. The costs and deployment problems are correctly identified. The blame on the congress critters in the abject service of the military industrial complex get mentioned, but deserve more attention.

Very interesting technology (some of which I have worked on) and an attempt at missile defense at the only stage of the trajectory where it makes sense. But loitering over Russia with fighter support and tankers has never met the smell test as a tactic. Then there are cruise missiles and suitcase bombs that could get through anyway. Now if we could find an exit strategy in Afghanistan...

Dwight posted this story.
See Full Review » (13 answers)
Tanya J. Maurer
3.7
 by Tanya J. Maurer - Jul. 19, 2009
See Full Review » (11 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

Sort by: Oldest | Newest Hide All Replies
NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.0

not enough reviews
from 2 reviews (18% confidence)
Quality
3.9
Facts
4.0
Fairness
4.5
Sourcing
4.0
Style
4.0
Context
3.5
Depth
3.0
Enterprise
4.0
Relevance
4.5
Popularity
4.1
Recommendation
4.0
Credibility
4.5
# Reviews
1.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!