Missile Defense (Or Fun with Stats)

People on both sides of the missile defense debate used to acknowledge that this was largely an inside the beltway debate. Both sides would point out that most people in this country don't pay attention to the issue because they believe the United States already has a shield that can knock down ICBM's launched by the bad guys.

However, an ex-NFL linebacker named Riki Ellison pimping who is pimping for the missile defense program is hyping up a survey by his group, the Missile Defense Advocasy Alliance, that shows that most people in this country haven't read about missile defense recently. Ellison, who should be congradulated for using his celebrity as a member of three 49er teams that won Super Bowls to speak out on behalf of a program that is receives about $8 billion or so annually, believes that this stat means that Americans believe we don't have a missile defense system.

Talk about a great misuse of statistics. Ellison's poll also got generally positive responses to a question that basically asked if, since missile defense accounts for about 2% of the Pentagon's budget, isn't that a reasonable and worthwhile expense? He did not mention if the survey also asked if the Pentagon should spend a good chunk of that dough on, oh, say, body armour and vehicle armor for our boys in Iraq who are being shot at and risk driving over improvised explosives on a regular basis.

Ellison and the Pentagon want to declare operational a system that hasn't been tested in the manner with which it would be deployed. They say that Americans would prefer to have a system that may not be 100% effective rather than no system at all as justification for declaring it ready shortly, and give the example of a person wanting a roof over their house immediately, even if it isn't perfect.

If those guys are right about one thing, it's that the system isn't perfect. The interceptor rockets haven't even taken off in the last two tests.

Well, here's another way to look at it: ask 1,000 Americans whether they would like a roof over their heads, even if all evidence thus far says that the roof isn't likely to work, but they'll be paying for a top dollar model?

All evidence thus far says that it's much easier to launch an attack on the U.S. with far cheaper modes than an ICBM. Now, the roof over the house argument is a bit silly -- you can't really have a house without one, and we've somehow had a United States of America without a missile defense shield for a few hundred years now.

But if the forecast called for nice weather for the next few years, I'm sure as heck not going to buy expensive rain gear that may or may not work....Maybe I'd save up for a good umbrella for when the weather report is expected to change.