According to a Feb 14 briefing by Deputy National Security Advisor James Jeffrey, the decision to destroy satellite "USA 193", which malfunctioned within hours of its launch in Dec 2006, hinged on:
The likelihood that the satellite, upon descent to the Earth's surface, could release much of its 1000-plus pounds of hydrazine fuel as a toxic gas [over, as Gen. James Cartwright added] an area, say, roughly the size of two football fields [in which the effect on bystanders] could in fact be deadly.The mission to destroy the satellite, which appears to have cost between $150m and $1b to build in the first place, is estimated to have cost an addition $40-60m, but in the opinion of Iowa City, IA-based schizophrenia researcher Matt Fargus, it was "worth every penny". Dr Fargus, who's currently struggling to renew his research funding, commented that, while the combined cost of building and then destroying USA 193 may in of itself have covered a proposed $1.1b funding increase for the NIH vetoed by President Bush last November, he's nonetheless pleased with the Pentagon’s efforts. “Put it this way”, he said, “would you rather fund groundbreaking medical research into a disorder that only affects maybe 100,000 new patients in the US each year, or would you use that hard-earned money to potentially save millions of taxpayers' lives from a hydrazine-infested clusterfuck that they’d spent millions of dollars to bankroll into space in the first place?"
Endeavors such as the building and destroying of USA 193 will continue to be covered if Congress approves funding requested by President Bush for Fiscal Year 2009, a fact not lost upon poor college-aged adults – one of the key demographics groups to have rallied behind the Pentagon in recent days. Take 19-year-old Winchendon, MA-native Jim Cano, who’s deferring a year and working full-time in hopes of affording a four-year college tuition next Fall. “At first I was pissed", said Cano, "that Bush requested a combined $21.1b just for 'space-based capability' and missile defense funding, which alone could pay for 414,131 students to attend Harvard this year, but that was before I realized how badly those funds are needed by our military. Look, I don't know if other countries like Russia and China have the capability to launch poisonous satellites of hate into space, but we sure as shit do. And it's comforting to know, I think, that we have the means to protect ourselves from ourselves should we do so again in the future".
Missile defense funding comprises less than 5% of the $515.4b requested by Mr Bush for the Dept of Defense’s 2009 “base budget”, which does not include an additional $70b – a figure that some feel is unrealistically low – requested for ongoing efforts in the Global War on Terror. If approved, this would vastly increase overall US military spending, which the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimated (as of 2006) already exceeded military expenditures of the next 14 highest countries combined.
But Brenda Moakley, a 35-year-old single mom from Olympia, WA, says she's cool with that. Moakley, who works two jobs in order to raises her three kids, commented: “Initially, I couldn't understand why the President supported a 1-yr, $35.9b pay hike for the DOD, but vetoed a bipartisan-proposed 5-yr, $35b funding increase for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which would have allowed someone in my income bracket to receive subsidies to help cover my kids' healthcare costs. But then I heard about USA 193 and got to thinking about how moot affordable health insurance would be if my kids and I were killed by a US-made, 1000-lb death comet unleashing holy hell on our apartment complex. Priorities, people!"
Even 80s pop icon Prince, whose presence added some star power to the panel, couldn't conceal his delight over the Pentagon's recent success, even though his 1987 hit single "Sign o' the Times" included the verse:
A sister killed her baby cuz she couldn't afford 2 feed itToday, however, Prince remarked, "I used 2 think ending hunger and poverty deserved as much priority as star wars and national defense, but then yesterday, having just finished a game of b-ball with the Revolution, I was watching that YouTube clip of the satellite's takedown. Afterwards, as I pondered my reflection in the gentle waters of Lake Minnetonka, it suddenly hit me: Prince, you're the one who's been doing horse – this missile shit is cool, crazy cool. So I say let's go crazy, America! Let's get nuts!"
And yet we're sending people 2 the moon
In September my cousin tried reefer 4 the very first time
Now he's doing horse, it's June
Posts
2 comments:
What breadth, what insight, what hillarity. The true hillarity is how military spending goes basically unchecked in this country. No one can ever question it without being labeled unpatriotic, not supporting the troops, a terrorist sympathizer, and the like. The people who profit from all this are not namely the Amercian people or the troops but corporations like Lockhead Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon to name a few. Heed the words of President Eisenhower when he left office on January 17, 1961 "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
See, even Prince gets it. He understands he won't be able to ponder his reflection in the calm waters of Lake Minnetonka if a rogue U.S. missile obliterates it.
Priceless. Truer words of jest have rarely been written, Mr. Brumm.
Post a Comment