5th Estate-The Patriot Missiles.

by foreword 4 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  foreword

  Last night's "Fifth Estate" was about the Patriot missiles.

  Well it seems that during and after the Gulf War, the US was claiming almost 100% accuracy in intercepting the Scud missiles with the Patriots.

  Shortly after the war, Bush Sr. visited Raytheon, the company which manufactures the Patriot missiles. In a speech there, and although he knew then that the accuracy was....well....0%..he still claimed 100%.

  During the war, through their media cronies, they actually had footage of Patriots intercepting Scuds, which was all a set-up.

  What they failed to mention when they talked about 100% accuracy, was that the accuracy they were talking about was that the Patriots entered the same airspace as the Scuds but not at the same time. There was not one contact with the Scuds.

  Shortly afterwards, Raytheon got a hefty contract to produce an anti-balistic program based on Patriot technology to protect the US.

  I feel really safe....
• 

  hawkaw

  Its actually very old news. And it was reported in the American and Canadian news on the major networks.

  Its just the lamestream press didn't give it the attention it deserves over the years because ... well ... you know ... some stories are more important than others .....

  What you are saying about Raytheon is correct.

  I do think you are saying something a little inaccurate. Bush 41 and Cheney (former Sec. of Defence) were relying on what the military personnel had told them. When Bush 41 gave that and many like it speeches he was just using the talking points of what the military offered. He never considered that his own military would lie to him and he refused to believe the Israel's defence minister.

  I also think your "media cronies" comment is a little over the top. As just one minor example, sir, Bob McKeown (who did the show last night) was working for CBS during the war and was the first reporter into Kuwait City.

  hawk

  Edited by - hawkaw on 6 February 2003 15:59:12
• 

  foreword

  Yeah...I do have the habit of going overboard once in a while....

  I guess I'm into pessimistic sensationalism.

  You could be right about the Bush and Cheney bit, but it did sound like he knew about it.
• 

  Xander

  1) The Patriot was designed (like the Hawk, its predecessor) was designed as an anti-aicraft weapon. The 'TBM-defense' role (theater ballistic missile) was added fairly recently through software and hardware upgrades. At the time of Gulf War 1, the software upgrades were not nearly as mature as they are now, and the newer missiles had not entered service. A 'low' success rate should be expected. The point was that they were show pieces that kept Israel out of the war - that's all that they were *needed* for then, and they succeeded in their mission.

  Now, of course, we may worry about much more with potential NBC attacks coming against US troops moving towards Baghdad. The Patriot and Hawk MUST be able to intercept Iraqi missiles more reliably. Fortunately, we now have at least one entire new generation of missiles available, with countless software updates.

  2) They did have SOME success in Gulf War 1 - the ratio was low, but not 0%
• 

  Navigator

  The problem with the Gulf War Patriots was they they couldn't distinguish between the warhead and the missle shell which was well separated from the warhead by the time the Patriot intercepted. Hopefully they've improved them in recent years. The Patriot was designed to intercept aircraft where that problem didn't exist.