Here’s an important message to CounterPunch readers from
Here at CounterPunch we love Barbara Ehrenreich for many reasons: her courage, her intelligence and her untarnished optimism. Ehrenreich knows what’s important in life; she knows how hard most Americans have to work just to get by, and she knows what it’s going to take to forge radical change in this country. We’re proud to fight along side her in this long struggle. We hope you agree with Barbara that CounterPunch plays a unique role on the Left. Our future is in your hands. Please donate.
Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.
Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.
CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.
The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.
Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683
Thank you for your support,
Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel
CounterPunch PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558
The Folly of Star Wars
When Steven Colbert declared George W. Bush not to be "brainiac" or a "factinista," he likely wasn’t thinking of Dubya’s policies on Iran or national missile "defense." But Colbert would have been on target if he had been.
Bush’s folly of refusing to sign a nonaggression pact with Tehran in return for Iran’s cessation of nuclear enrichment and future possible bomb making is that the US cannot effectively project forces into Iran in any event.
We are fighting the Iraq war with repeated deployments of the National Guard and reserves, which were not designed for this use. The U.S. Army is, perforce, almost broken. Now the Taliban is challenging our forces anew in Afghanistan, our commander-in-chief is about to militarize the US-Mexican border with-surprise!-more National Guardsmen, and the next Gulf Coast hurricane season is almost upon us-a certain, future drain on guard and reserve resources.
Moreover-and the mainstream media is mostly silent about this-the Islamic bomb to worry most about in the near-term is in Pakistan, not Iran, yet the administration hyperventilates about Tehran, not Islamabad. In Pakistan, the Musharraf regime already has the bomb, yet is barely managing to stay one step ahead of increasingly powerful opponents in the streets (who are enraged about the American invasion of Iraq and would inherit the "Islamic Bomb" if Musharraf should fall).
Now Bush has announced a plan to use a missile "defense" against Iran. It beats negotiates, the president seems to be saying. The anti-missile-missile system would be similar to the one the administration deployed in Alaska where tests still have not proved its viability, despite an initial cost of $122 billion.
To improve the systems chances of success, the folks in charge of the Alaska-based system lowered the bar to success in tests recently: only one interceptor went up against a target that employed countermeasures. In other words, it’s an anti-missile-missile that depends on an enemy who would cooperate with us by eschewing decoys and countermoves. The administration will not, cannot estimate the cost of our own anti-missile program, much less the proposed new one.
That’s not the half of it.
Even if the Pentagon could deploy an anti-missile missile that was 80 percent effective-a better success rate than any in history-the system would be unlikely to prevent a successful enemy attack. The explanation lies in probability theory:
Let’s assume an 80 percent success rate for a U.S. missile interceptor matched against an incoming warhead (the equivalent of trying to hit a gnat with a b-b gun). Let’s further assume an enemy has launched eight ICBM warheads against us.
Probability theory teaches that the U.S. missile interceptor attacking the first warhead takes an 80 percent bite out of its (the interceptor’s) probability of success, leaving a 20 percent probability that the attack will succeed and the defense will fail.
The Pentagon’s second interceptor takes an 80 percent bite out of the second warhead’s probability of success.
But in terms of totally defeating the attack, 20 percent of the attack is now beyond the ability of the second interceptor to change. That is, there’s a 20 percent probability that the attack has already succeeded with the first warhead, and the defense has failed in its mission of total protection.
Therefore, the second interceptor can only take an 80 percent bite out of the remaining 80 percent, which means the best you can do with two interceptors against two warheads is 80 percent of 80 percent, or 64 percent.
Run through the declining success rates to the eighth incoming warhead, and you’ll discover that U.S. interceptors boasting "80 percent reliability" will collectively achieve only a 17 percent probability of success against the eight-missile attack.
If the enemy launched 20 missiles instead of eight (more likely), the national missile defense system’s probability of success falls to 1 percent – meaning there is a 99 percent chance that the attack will succeed.
Bush’s anti-missile missile system gives new meaning to a "faith based initiative."
LES AUCOIN is a former congressman from Oregon who served on the House Defense Appropriations Committee, where he led a study of missile defense and won the Herman Scoville Award from the Union of Concerned Scientists for legislating a ban on anti-satellite weapons during the Reagan Administration. A retired professor of political science, he is an Ashland, Oregon writer. He can be reache through his blog: http://lesaucoin.squarespace.com