Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pgerassi who wrote (130173)	12/29/2000 2:25:32 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572361

Re: Oh, any Patriot didn't destroy any Scud. You must have missed the entire Gulf War on CNN and all the major networks It was fun to watch all that on TV, and very inspiring, but a serious review several months later revealed that few SCUDs were destroyed. Most of what showed up as successes on TV were just the patriots blowing up. The scuds that were affected were mostly diverted a little from their initial path. Almost no warheads were actually destroyed, and, even more tragically, the worst incident involving Americans (I think it was 18 people in a hospital) was where one of those diverted warheads landed. Those people wouldn't have been killed if not for the Patriot missile system. While the proposed defense system would be much more capable than the patriot system is, those SCUDs were basically World War II issue German V2's. The missiles the SDI has to deal with would reflect 60 years of progress - and we couldn't even do much more than shove the SCUDs aside. The notion of having a system that could save us from a single accidentally launched missile is appealing, but building such a system would be an extremely provocative act, and stands a good chance of forcing the Soviets to perform a first strike to prevent us from getting into a position where we could threaten them, but they couldn't threaten us. Recent changes in the leadership of Russia make it imperative, IMHO, that we not begin to assemble this threat to their security. It isn't just the technical aspects of the SDI that I question, it's also the political aspects. Regardless of whether or not an effective missile defense system could be built, I don't think we'd be able to build it without first suffering the nuclear strike we're trying to avert - and after such a strike we may not need it anymore. Dan

To: pgerassi who wrote (130173)	12/29/2000 2:58:25 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572361

Oh, any Patriot didn't destroy any Scud. That may well be very close to correct, though it took a few years for that particular factoid to come out. The effectiveness of the Patriots was greatly exaggerated. Somehow, your citation of the Patriot makes me take the rest of your technobabble less seriously, Pete, not that I took it particularly seriously in the first place. For the 29 engagements that Postol and Lewis score on the basis of video data, supplemented in several cases by extra-video evidence, they find: (1) lack of evidence for even a single Patriot warhead kill; (2) evidence for 28 engagement failures; and (3) one engagement which cannot be scored conclusively because it may have been outside the defended perimeter. (If the Scud was inside the defended area, the Patriot score would be failure.) Postol and Lewis are certain that at least 27 of these 29 engagements are distinct, and believe that at least 28 are distinct. Using 44 as the total number of engagable Scuds in the Gulf War, 27-29 represents a population sample of 61%–66%. In addition to the 29 engagements they score, Postol and Lewis have video data on three other engagements, but they judge the evidence contained therein insufficient for scoring. gbhap-us.com After a 10-month investigation in 1992 by the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security, the subcommittee concluded there was little evidence to prove the Patriot hit more than a few Scud missiles launched by Iraq. Another 1992 investigation done by the General Accounting Office found that only 9 percent of the Patriot-Scud engagements "are supported by the strongest evidence that an engagement resulted in a warhead kill." (The GAO defined "the strongest evidence" as instances in which Scud debris or radar data indicated that a Scud was destroyed or disabled after a Patriot detonated near it.) Except in 9 percent of the cases, the GAO report said the Army could prove only that "the Patriots came close to the Scuds, not that they destroyed them." homestead.com The Patriot was deployed during the Gulf War to shoot down Iraqi Scud missiles over Israel and Saudi Arabia. A myth of Patriot invincibility soon developed. Then-President George Bush applauded cheering workers on the Patriot assembly line: "Thank God for the Patriot missile: 42 Scuds engaged, 41 intercepted!" In reality, the record was hardly glowing. Israel was so disappointed that it is developing its own controversial system called the Arrow - for higher-altitude targets - jointly with the United States. "The only Israeli casualty from the Scud attacks was hit with debris from a Patriot," says Zeev Maoz, head of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv. "There is now a big debate about how effective any system can be." csmonitor.com And yet, the image of brave Patriots slaying deadly Scuds was probably the most memorable scene of the Persian Gulf War movie. About 158 Patriot missiles were fired. Each missile cost $700,000. They missed eight out of ten times. When they found their targets, the resulting debris caused more destruction than the Scuds alone would have. But all that was not in the script of instant history. The most thorough analysis of the Patriot anti-missile system was made by physicist Theodore A. Postol, a Pentagon science adviser and professor of national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He called the system "an almost total failure," even though it faced "quite primitive attacking missiles." The displays of thunder and flame seen around the world were an illusion, he said. Patriots would rush toward speeding fragments of poorly designed Iraqi Scuds that fell apart in the atmosphere as they approached their targets. The resulting fireball was mistaken as a successful interception, while in actuality the Scud warhead streaked by unscathed (Broad 1992). Johnson (1991) concluded that the Patriots were "successful mainly as psychological weapons used to fool the public." This success is shown in a survey by Morgan, Lewis, and Jhally: 81 percent of the population knew about the Patriots, while only 42 percent could identify Colin Powell. smcm.edu Of course, I'm sure you could come up with numerous articles from paid propagandists for the military industrial complex saying how great the Patriot worked. They said so on CNN at the time, so it must be true, right, Pete?