Ritter’s Rant 072: Missile Defense

Hello and welcome to this edition of Ritter's Rant. Today we're going to be talking about air defense or missile defense. It's sort of the same thing because they use similar weapons. Uh you know, right now in Ukraine, we have a situation where the Ukrainian military has depleted its u its air defense systems. They're out of missiles basically. and nations are saying they're just not going to provide them. For instance, Germany said, "We're not providing any more air defense missiles, Patriot missiles to Ukraine because we're out of them." And it's the same holds true. Uh there's just a finite amount of Patriot missiles. And the intensity of the uh air war um over Ukraine being waged by Russia is such that the air defense systems that have been provided to Ukraine can't keep pace. I mean this is the reality of missile math. Um it's always been this way. One of the reasons why the anti-bballistic missile treaty was signed in 1972 was because of the horrific expenses associated with trying to build missile defenses capable of you know matching the threat from missiles. Uh and it was determined that the best way to eliminate the threat of missiles is to ensure that both sides would be destroyed if missiles were ever used. Enter mutually assured destruction. But unfortunately the mythology of the perfect defense has always you know captured the imagination of politicians. Uh one can only think of the Majino line um you know that the French built to keep the Germans out but that didn't work because the Germans just went around it. Uh we can look at Iron Dome uh you know the Israeli uh missile defense system that you know failed egregiously u in the face of a concerted Iranian ballistic missile attack. You know we can you know look at you know conceptual things strategic defense initiative uh star wars of Ronald Reagan. It just didn't work straight up didn't work. And yet we never able to let go of this and we continue to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into you know the concept of missile defense. Today we have you know 40 plus missiles in Gley Air Force Base in Alaska that don't work. They just don't work and we know they don't work. But because we were committed to the concept of missile defense, we went ahead and developed these missiles and put them in the ground. And now we have people who, you know, operate on the pretense that they could work, but they won't work because they don't work. Uh the tests were falsified. I mean, this is the other thing we wanted so much that we end up lying to ourselves about the efficacy, about, you know, the efficiency um you know, the operational viability of these of these weapons. But they don't work. the offense will always defeat a defense. That's just the way it is. And now we have Donald Trump risking America's geopolitical, you know, status of willing to throw away decades old, you know, treaty relationships with our European partners because he wants Greenland so he can put in the Golden Dome missile defense. Another missile defense concept that just won't work, can't work, will never work. the technology is unproven. We can't afford to build these things. Um, and it just creates a false sense of security that actually puts us further at risk. And this is really getting to where I want to go. Today, we have the United States pouring into the Middle East. Um, you know, dozens of, you know, batteries of Patriot missiles and THAD missiles. These are interceptors designed to shoot down Iranian missiles. And the idea is that by putting these systems in place, we somehow secure oursel from the threat of Iran's ballistic missiles, thereby empowering us to launch an attack against Iran, uh to do punishment on Iran and not receive the punishment from Iran. Um but here's the catch. They don't work. And we know they don't work. They don't work to the degree necessary to defend both American installations, Israeli installations, and Middle East oil production facilities from the threat of Iranian a concerted concentrated Iranian ballistic missile attack. Um, you know, for for some reasons, politicians are unable to accept the the reality that the these missile defense systems that we put so much effort into building don't provide the security that we want them to provide. And, you know, if we were able to accept that, then we'd adjust how we interface with the rest of the world. Maybe we wouldn't be so aggressive because we recognize that there would be consequences to our aggression. uh consequences that would occur when nations capable of striking back do strike back. Look at Ukraine again. We come around full circle. Ukraine believed that they could hide underneath a shield of, you know, missile defense capabilities provided to it by the West and thereby would be able to launch attacks against Russia, inflicting damage on Russia, harm on Russia, trying to achieve an outcome that um was, you know, contingent upon the the collapse of confidence um in the Russian government, by Russian society, by the Russian military because of these attacks. But all Ukraine did is open itself up to a counterattack by the Russians where the Russians, you know, destroyed the Ukrainian air defense systems, leaving Ukraine defenseless in the face of, you know, a continued onslaught by Russia to punish Ukraine for that which it has done. Uh hopefully there are people in the United States that are looking at the Ukrainian scenario and looking at the past scenario that was played out in Israel. I need to remind people that it was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who picked up the phone at the end of the 12-day war with Iran and begged the United States to intervene to bring this war to an end because Israel's missile defense system, the Iron Dome, couldn't stop the Iranian missiles. And Israel was starting to feel pain, real pain. And now we have people in the United States talking about potentially attacking Iran, uh, trying to punish Iran to bring down the Iranian regime. Um, but in order to do this, they need to ensure that Iran doesn't bring down the global order. And this is what's at risk. This isn't just about hundreds, if not thousands of American bodies coming home in body bags, killed by Iranian missiles raining down on military bases that will be defenseless because the Patriot and FAD systems simply don't work. This isn't about the damage that would be done to our ally Israel. Uh damage that could be fatal in terms of Israel's viability as a modern nation state. This is about the world economy. This is about Iran ensuring that no oil would be produced from Azarbaijani oil fields, from Saudi Arabian oil fields, from Kuwaiti oil fields, from United Arab Emirati oil fields, from any oil and gas fields in the Middle East. Um because if we do attack Iran, this would be an existential conflict for Iran, a fight for their literal survival. The goals and objectives of an American Israeli attack would be regime change to topple the regime. And if this is indeed what is happening, then there's no reason for the Iranians to hold back. Their best bet for survival is to tell the world, to tell the region, we will bring you all down with us. Why? because there's no air defense system, no missile defense system capable of stopping the Iranian missiles from hitting their targets once a war starts. Missile defense, think about it, guys. It's a very important topic. Anyways, this has been my rant. The next time an idea crosses my mind, I'll be sure to let you know.

Missile Defense provides a false sense of security that manifests itself in bad decision making by leaders who think there won't be consequences to their actions.