Dear Nay-Sayers: missile defense works

***Posted by Phineas

At least well-enough in tests that it is worth pursuing for field deployment. The Closing Velocity blog keeps track of developments in missile defense and has posted a couple of interesting items in the last few days. The first involves the successful interception of an incoming missile during its reentry phase, meaning it’s closing on its target — such as an American city:

Lockheed Martin has conducted the second successful test of an advanced version of the combat-proven Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missile system.

The upgraded missile – the PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) – successfully intercepted a threat representative tactical ballistic missile target in the MSE battlespace at the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico Wednesday.

(…)

The PAC-3 MSE missile features a larger, more powerful rocket motor for increased thrust, along with larger fins and other structural modifications for more agility. The modifications extend the missile’s reach by up to 50 percent, according to Lockheed.

If the name “Patriot” looks familiar to you, that’s because the PAC-3 is a descendant of the Patriot missile defense system that became famous during Gulf War I with, as I recall, mixed results. Twenty years down the road, the improvements seem to be remarkable.

It might also be familiar because, as McKittrick points out, the PAC-3 was the missile-defense system to be deployed in Poland and the Czech Republic — that is, until Obama pulled the rug out from under them to appease Moscow.

Then again, our president is quite honest about his attitudes regarding ballistic-missile defense:

As with his archaic beliefs regarding arms-control with the Russians, President Obama’s mind seems to be stuck in the early 80s.

The other development is the successful testing of the Arrow-2 counter-missile, a joint Israel-US project, off the coast of California, in a simulation of an Iranian attack on Israel:

Last night, off the coast of California, the joint US-Israeli missile defense system Arrow 2 achieved a remarkable intercept of a simulated Iranian ballistic missile:

  • The Arrow interceptor was launched at around 10:30 pm Pacific Standard Time from a US Navy base along the California coast and intercepted a missile fired from a nearby navy vessel. Defense officials said that the enemy missile impersonated a “future threat that Israel could one day face in the region.” Defense officials lauded the successful launching as another indication of Israel’s defense capabilities in the face of Iran’s continued quest for a nuclear weapon. They said that the Arrow system could protect Israel from all of the missiles in Iran’s arsenal.

And here’s some entertaining video of the intercept. You may “ooh” and “ah” at will:

I don’t know about you, but I find this pretty darned exciting. Sure, these were simulations under relatively controlled conditions, but that is still shooting one bullet out of the air with another bullet, as McKittrick put it. Given the success shown so far and the danger posed by unstable tyrants in Pyongyang and Tehran (And where else that we haven’t heard of?), isn’t an anti-missile shield for America and her allies worth pursuing? I’ll grant it wouldn’t be enough to hold off a massive attack by the Russians or the Chinese, but that’s not the likely danger, these days. The threat of a small salvo or individual rocket from a rogue nation or even a capable terrorist organization is much more credible and still potentially devastating, and that is exactly what these systems are designed to handle.

It’s a shame we have a president who can’t see the world for what it is, rather than what it was when he was in college.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

For unions, there is no “bargaining” in “collective bargaining”

Wisconsin Policy Research Institute senior fellow Christian Schneider has a fascinating write-up on the behind the scenes union machinations that were taking place prior not only to the (perceived belief that) Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s budget bill would become law – but even before he was sworn in. It’s an in-depth look at union “bargaining” that big labor doesn’t want the public to see: union “leaders” pretty much writing their own tickets without going through that little process called “bargaining”:

Just days after Gov. Scott Walker introduced his budget repair bill, public-sector-union leaders said they would accept Walker’s financial demands as long as he kept collective bargaining intact. However, in the time bought by the flight of 14 Democratic state senators, local governments have been quickly adopting new contracts in advance of Walker’s bill becoming law. In effect, the unions are spraying their benefits with Walker repellent. (In fact, an investigative report shows that there may have been collusion between the missing state senators and City of Madison officials to delay the bill so contracts could be signed.)

Three days after the governor introduced his budget, the Milwaukee Area Technical College ratified a new three-year contract that preserves no-cost pensions and contains no layoffs for its teachers (average pay: $95,000.) Union leaders called an emergency meeting at 5:00 p.m. on a Friday night to vote on their new contract — yet their president said that had “nothing to do” with Walker’s budget-repair bill.

State employees tried to pull a similar trick in December. In a Hindenburg-like fiasco, Democrats tried to use the pre-Walker lame-duck session to pass state union-worker contracts with microscopic concessions. To get their deciding vote in the assembly, they even pulled a legislator out of jail, where he was serving time for drunk driving. The contracts unexpectedly failed by one vote in the senate when the Democrats’ leader inexplicably switched his position at the last minute.

Also before Walker took office, the Milwaukee Public School board quickly adopted a four-year teacher contract that runs through 2013. It contains pay increases of 2.5 to 3 percent, and requires teachers to begin contributing to their health insurance for the first time — although in amounts well short of what Walker is proposing (1 percent of salary for single coverage, 2 percent for family). The contract also extends health benefits to domestic partners, which will offset a good portion of the $50 million in savings the district expects to realize from the teachers’ contributions.

For other school districts that ram through generous contracts, the results could be disastrous: Walker just announced a budget that reduces state aid to local school districts by $834 million; much of that cut was going to be offset by teachers’ increased benefit contributions, but districts that capitulate to their teachers won’t have that option. Instead of having a full complement of teachers paying slightly more for their benefits, they will have fewer teachers, but teachers with jewel-encrusted retirement and health packages. Then they will blame Scott Walker for the massive layoffs their districts will see.

[…]

This rush to ratify new contracts is why Scott Walker didn’t take the union leaders up on their “deal” almost two weeks ago — there’s no way the AFSCME and AFL-CIO big shots could control the contract machinations of over 1,000 local governments. While protesters roared that their objection to Walker’s plan wasn’t “about the money,” their bargaining units were working furiously behind the scenes to grab as much cash as possible before Walker dropped the guillotine.

Furthermore, these new contracts demonstrate why declaring public sector “collective bargaining” to be sacrosanct is so preposterous. In places like the City of Madison, there’s very little “bargaining” happening. Public employees and elected officials are sitting on the same side of the table. The only actual negotiating taking place is from city employees deciding which Applebee’s they’ll crash to celebrate their fat new contracts.

Remember all this the next time you see one of the numerous polls out there right now (like this one from Rasmussen) that supposedly show how a “majority” of people favor leaving the “right” to collective bargaining untouched.

Regarding the possible collusion Schneider mentioned between City of Madison officials and the MIA Democrat state senators in the days leading up to their hasty exit to Illinois, Ed Morrissey gets it right:

[Madison Mayor Dave] Ciesliewicz claimed that Madison’s government bargained “in good faith” to get the best deal taxpayers could get from the contract. Does this sound like Ciesliewicz and his team had taxpayers in mind, or currying favor with the unions? The attempt to rush into an agreement that avoids the curbs on PEU collective bargaining prerogatives and to avoid cutting the benefits of employees does sound a lot more like collusion than “good faith” bargaining on behalf of taxpayers, whether or not it meets the legal definition of collusion.

Amen.

These people are contempible. Absolutely, positively freakin’ contemptible.

Related reading: