McCain Goes Ballistic

Photo by flickr user <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/soggydan/2252112316/">soggydan</a> used under a <a href="http://www.creativecommons.org">Creative Commons</a> license.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


As the news broke that President Barack Obama was scrapping President George W. Bush’s proposal to place missile defense bases with yet-to-be proven technology in Poland and the Czech Republic and moving ahead with a mobile, partly sea-based system using existing technology, Senator John McCain became a leading critic of this decision. He decried Obama’s plan—which followed the recommendation of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff—as “seriously misguided” and called it a cave-in to Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader who had opposed deployment of US missile defense systems in Eastern Europe.

McCain shared his complaint with ABC News:

The President’s general-election opponent, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, told ABC News that he had not been briefed on the announcement, and he wasn’t exactly sure he knew what constituted the new more mobile system.

“I haven’t heard of it,” McCain said. The new system, he added, “is certainly unproven technology.”

But unlike the Bush system, which depended on a two-stage ground-based missile that was untested, the new system will be composed of elements already in the field and proven—and McCain should be quite familiar with them.

The core weapons in Obama’s missile defense proposal—designed to address regional ballistic missile threats in Europe (mainly a potential attack from Iran), not intercontinental missile attacks—are the sea-based Aegis missile-tracking system and the SM-3 interceptor missile. Both are currently in use on US Navy ships, including a destroyer called—wait for it—the USS John McCain, which was named after the senator’s father and grandfather, both admirals. This missile defense system was in the news earlier this year when North Korea was test launching a missile:

“I understand two Aegis destroyers, including USS John McCain, will continue to stay in the East Sea in apparent preparation for the North’s missile launch,” the [South Korean] official said, asking not to be identified.

USS John McCain is a 9,200-ton Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, which is equipped with the Aegis combat system that allows it to simultaneously track over 100 targets from more than 190 kilometers.

The destroyer also carries a multiple number of Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), which makes up the backbone of the United  States’ naval missile defense or MD system.

The use of the Aegis system and the SM-3 for mid-range missile interception has been extensively discussed by the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, including McCain. In July Defense Daily reported:

Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said last month his panel “shifted the emphasis” on missile defense. While it supported Obama’s proposed ground-based interceptor curtailments, he said, it also backed the administration’s request to increase funding for Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interceptors, near-term capabilities that counter existing threats to troops in theater.

That article also noted:

The committee did make some tweaks to Obama’s missile defense request. For example, its bill proposes reducing by $30 million the administration’s $1.7 billion request for the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense program and its SM-3 interceptor; the SASC believes all of the funds could not be executed. That $1.7 billion [Obama administration] request is a $600 million boost over FY ’09 funding.

At a June Senate hearing on missile defense, McCain himself publicly recognized that the Obama administration was heading toward greater reliance on the SM-3 for missile defense: “For some time now, this committee has urged the [Defense] department to increase its focus to rogue state in theater threats and I applaud the [Obama administration’s] decision to increase funding for both THAAD and SM-3.”

In his remarks to ABC News, McCain made it seem as if Obama’s proposal was all new to him and utterly untested. But that’s not so. Perhaps the possibility of using these elements for a European-based system was not on McCain’s radar screen. But he depicted Obama as proceeding recklessly—when, actually, it was McCain who had gone ballistic.

You can follow David Corn’s postings and media appearances via Twitter.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate