Published: December 3, 2003Filed at 5:24 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Northrop Grumman Corp. -Raytheon Co. team has won a contract that could be worth as much as $4.5 billion over eight years to develop an antimissile rocket capable of knocking out warheads in their first five minutes of flight, the Pentagon said Wednesday.The winners beat out a rival team made up of Lockheed Martin Corp. and Boeing Co. to build the ``kinetic energy interceptor,'' part of President Bush's planned multilayered shield against ballistic missiles such as those that could be launched by North Korea.
Asked whether it was more difficult to shoot down a ballistic missile or an airplane, Pentagon Under Secretary of Defense for Cognitive Dissonance Pearl F. Buckley replied "Is this a trick question? Is this like last week when you kept asking me about where we were going to bury the survivors from the last ambush?"Assured it was not a trick, Buckley suggested that aircraft, which are larger than ballistic missiles, and move more slowly and at lower altitudes, would be easier to shoot down. Buckley was then asked how the Pentagon felt about the safety of its aircraft and helicopters in Iraq, at which point she repeated that standard Pentagon line that with enough countermeasures (flares, chaff, radar jammers, Infra-red jammers), aircraft could be protected from missiles.
Another reporter then asked if ballistic missiles could carry countermeasures such as chaff, flares, or radar jammers. Buckley paused before replying "Well theoretically, yes…. But they won't work, because … I mean, we're spending 4.5 billion to … oh, crap." She left to make a phone call, then returned to the podium to report that "The Ballistic Missile Defense Agency tells me that we know of no ballistic missile program carrying countermeasures than can be deployed during the boost phase."
As the AP and Agence-France Presse reporters blocked the exit, Under Secretary Buckley was asked whether the countermeasures that protect aircraft preceded the development of anti-aircraft missiles or were a - often successful - reaction to them."I can see where you're going with this," she replied, "but it's not a valid analogy. Just because anti-aircraft missiles can be fooled doesn't mean our anti-missile missiles will be. Besides, if an enemy had enough anti-aircraft missiles, they really would shoot down most cargo planes - that's why we have to bomb the AA sites at the start of each war - to take out the launchers before they can attack our planes. In anti-missile terms, the North Koreans could never… I mean, these boost-phase interceptors would be based in Japan or at sea, so the North …. I mean, we have anti-aircraft missiles to stop the North Korean planes from bombing those ... Oh, crap, I have to make another phone call."
Remember, Kids, the part in bold is actual 100% news-flavored media product.
The rest is the fakey part.
Home Previous Lines of the Day
Usually that line is a come-on for "donations" via Paypal. Well, we know you're broke, and we'd just spend the money on sniffing glue anyway, so forget money. Send us feedback. Like this story? Hate it? Think we're the lamest site since microsoft.com?
No, we won't do anything with your return address execpt, maybe, send you a thank-you note.
