Portrait of a Woman Who'd Have Been Better Off Stapling Her Mouth Shut

Carolyn Parrish is certainly entitled to her opinion that supporters of the US "Missile Shield" are idiots.

Whether she's entitled to blurt it out on national TV, beg reporters not to report it, then stand tall and say "Yeah--I meant to do that" is another series of questions entirely.

I, of course, am entitled to my opinion that Parrish is an idiot. I am also equally entitled to report it in the public sphere.

Please feel free to report that I said that.

Carolyn is the same person who called Americans "bastards" during the emotional pre-Gulf-War-II days, shortly after (I think) a Chretien aide who described George the Second-rate as a "moron" was forced to submit her resignation.

Of course, Parrish, cattle-brained moron (please feel free to report that I said that also) that she is, has a point.

The "missile shield" is so out to lunch that it's really science fiction.

The MS is the latest version of Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" idea. But whereas Reagan advocated shooting at other nations from a space-based missile platform, George Bush Junior wants to simply knock out missiles with other missiles. To this end he has essentially had to unilaterally withdraw from US strategic arms limitation treaties.

The technology already exists, in theory. As near as I can figure, the "missile shield" relies on improving the interception rate and using specially designed missiles to take out incoming bogeys.

The problem is that it doesn't work. I mean doesn't even nearly work. During the initial tests, which the Bush League described as a success, the interceptor found its target less than fifty percent of the time.

. . . Which would look a lot better if the earliest targets hadn't been broadcasting a very specific locating signal, in essence saying "Yeah! I'm right over here. . . warmer, warmer, warmer. . .oooooh, you're sizzling!"

So let's reprise: Given a target that screams "Here I am! COme and get me!", the missile shield will function correctly approximately fifty percent of the time.

I'd rather spend the development money on blackjack--the odds are roughly the same in a one-deck game.

What's the success rate like against a fast-moving target that deliberately hides itself under radar and broadcasts no signature?


The thing that really worries me is that as far as I can tell, the "Missile Shield" is an excuse to avoid diplomacy by gaining strategic superiority. I don't want Canada to be involved until the technology is more convincing. Hell, I'd even settle for a 75% success rate. But better yet, why don't we build our own missile shield?

It seems to me, though, that any soi-distant missile shield that defends the US will, simply by reason of geography, have to defend most of the populated areas in Canada anyway. Of course if you live in Nunavut and someone's dumb enough to launch a missile at it, you're kind of screwed.

Of course none of this makes Parrish any less an idiot.

Just in time for back-to-school wear.