From: General Herbert Slothrop
To: President Bush
CC: Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Rice
Re: Oops
Mr. President,
As you might have heard, the latest test of our missile defense system didn’t completely succeed. We tried to simulate a missile strike from North Korea. The good news is that the simulated missile launched without a hitch. The not-so-good news is that the whole “launching a missile to intercept it” thing was… not a total “slam-dunk,” really. Not so much. Didn’t actually “launch,” as they say. And this was despite the fact that we were told long in advance about the first missile’s launch, which isn’t really what, for instance, the North Koreans might do if they were attacking.
So, once again, “Oops.” It’s sort of a black eye for all of us, but what I have to tell you, Mr. President, is that it’s not our fault. See, the missile defense system was going to work perfectly…
… and then we had to go and invade Iraq.
No offense, I know you had your reasons. But what you must understand is that our missile defense initiative was precisely calibrated, at great cost, to defend us from imaginary nuclear threats (or “INTs,” as we call ‘em). Iraq, with its illusory nuclear program, exaggerated ballistic capabilities, and fractured military, was an ideal INT. I can say with confidence that our make-believe missile defense shield was 100% effective in repelling any and all Iraqi attacks on America. The shield was figuratively in place ever since the first Gulf War, and not a single missile got through. That was the mission, and we performed it with stunning precision.
This is not a criticism, Mr. President, but now you’ve gone and eliminated our most prominent INT. And you’ve left us with a couple of real nuclear threats (”RNT’s” or “Omygods,” in our jargon) in North Korea and possibly Iran. Frankly, the Missile Defense Agency simply isn’t equipped to deal with those kinds of threats. Not presently, anyway.
We’ll adjust. We have the best scientists in the world working on the problem now, and I am not prepared to take “No” for an answer. Nor will I take “impossible” or “ludicrous” or “a huge waste of time and money” for an answer, which is for some reason the kind of answer I tend to get from some of these pencilnecks around here. Don’t worry, they’ll fall into line. And in time we will transform the world’s most expensive and effective defense against imaginary nukes into the world’s safest shield against real nukes. That’s the mission now, and I will see to it that it is done.
How does 2148 strike you? Say, April-ish?
Yrs,
General Slothrop
Fanny Roborat
22 comments
Rusty
February 15, 2005 at 5:14 pm
1Isn’t “Slothrop” one of the demons from C.S. Lewis’ “Screwtape Letters”? No point. Just love the name.
R Michael Harman
February 15, 2005 at 5:52 pm
2Fred Kaplan at Slate has been on this case for years…
Auros
February 15, 2005 at 5:52 pm
3Gah. Stupid form fill-in thing decided to use my given name, instead of the one I usually post under.
Rusty
February 15, 2005 at 6:47 pm
4That can’t be! I’M R. Michael Harman! Imposter!
Overland
February 15, 2005 at 6:47 pm
5I don’t see a problem here. I’m sure that the homing beacon transmitter system that they put into the simulated missile missile to attract the anti- missile missile was working fine. If there had been anything working on the anti-missile missile, we could have had a direct hit. In other words…Mission Accomplished.
After all, anyone firing missiles at us will have homing beacons too.. won’t they?
Murray
February 15, 2005 at 7:43 pm
6I heard a guy on the radio claim that many might call this a failure but actually the only problem was that the rocket failed to exit the silo. In fact the radar system worked fine, the missile that they sent up to be shot down worked fine, the computer system worked fine, etc. Of 100 things that were needed, most worked fine.
I had a boat once, and its hull was 97% water tight.
HEY 97% is great! It’s much better than 93% or 75% or 42%. Why can’t those goddamn liberals realize that all this system needs to do is knock down 1 of the first 2000 missiles lobbed our way to be worth the billions (or is it trillions, Dave) we will spend.
superdude
February 15, 2005 at 7:52 pm
7I think you meant “at present.” Presently means “soon.”
Emmarie
February 15, 2005 at 8:11 pm
8Call this a stupid question, but what happens to the missles we fire and then don’t shoot down?
Come to think of it…
If nothing happened to that missle, and it was supposed to simulate one from North Korea, maybe our defense system is actually us counting on North Korea shooting rather harmless missles into the ocean or wherever.
David
February 15, 2005 at 8:24 pm
9Live “Four Way Street” by CSNY, extended set, just ended on my community radio station in Tampa, WMNF. Perfect background for reading General Slop Pot, or whatever his name was, explaining what an incredible success the test was. I thought 70 was passing, so if like 95% of systems worked, that deserves a ferking A.
Besides, the goal is to project unchallenged US military power in space, the final neocon frontier. Who cares if a ground-based “knock ‘em down” doesn’t work. It’s a side show. The main event’s gonna knock ‘em dead. And you ain’t gonna know whether that works or not until Generally Up Yours decides to take out Pyongyang from a couple of hundred miles up.
Onward “Christian” Star Warriors, launching as to Heavenly War (which calls for cup of Chock Full O Nuts, the heavenly blend).
Mike Z
February 15, 2005 at 8:36 pm
10Emmarie
They were pretty sure about this test, so they went ahead and aimed it at Anchorage in order to make the test as realistic as possible. Unfortunately, Anchorage has now been obliterated.
bellatrys
February 15, 2005 at 9:54 pm
11So we’re fine if we have to shoot ourselves…?
Somehow, that just totally figures.
Anyone ever see that old art film, “King of Hearts”–?
Bob
February 15, 2005 at 11:15 pm
12“Call this a stupid question, but what happens to the missles we fire and then don’t shoot down?”
We here at the Pacific Missle Command want to extend our sincere apologies to the folks at Kwajalein Atoll Chrysler-Plymouth for the little “accident” the other day. While we regret the damage, we have saved you the trouble of holding your annual inventory clearance sale next month.
Bob
February 15, 2005 at 11:19 pm
13Damn, that’s missile. Gotta change the stationery.
bri
February 15, 2005 at 11:23 pm
14This fiasco brought to you by the people who want “pay for performance” for our teachers!
Maybe if that had been the case, they coulda built the friggin’ thing right the first time.
I think we can safely blame this one on a teacher!
bri
Auros
February 16, 2005 at 12:18 am
15BTW, it’s worth noting the history of the Patriot interceptor missile. It was first hyped in the first Gulf War, but turned out not to have actually hit anything. Eventually they did get it working, and in the recent engagement, it has been successful at shooting a few incoming rockets or missiles. Unfortunately, because it runs on an autodetection and autofiring system — it has to, because things like missiles move so fast that there’s really no time for human intervention (even a missile on an intercontinental trajectory only takes a few minutes to pass through the region where a given interceptor system would be able to target it) — there were some false positives, i.e. friendly-fire attacks on helicopters and low-flying planes.
So, even if the missile defense system were perfect at intercepting real missiles, we’d have to worry about waking up to a front-page story about a passenger jet from Japan getting blown up by an errant interceptor. I’m sure the Pentagon would reassure us that everything was fine — after all, hundreds of other flights were NOT shot down, and that means the error rate is less than one percent!
jeremy
February 16, 2005 at 12:30 am
16Slothrop is one of the main characters in Thomas Pynchon’s novel “Gravity’s Rainbow.” A book that’s about missiles and rockets and such, among other things…
Linkmeister
February 16, 2005 at 1:24 am
17Bob, as someone who used to work on Kwajalein, I gotta tell ya, that Chrysler-Plymouth dealership only sold bikes. There are no POVs allowed on the island. I have it on good authority that the missile REALLY hit an outdated satcom radome across from the 7th green.
Mary
February 16, 2005 at 9:22 am
18It is times like this that makes me proud to be the liberal arts major from a family of engineers ;-D
(None of the family members work for the government or any companies involved with the missile program. Thank Lobster!)
Monty Zoom
February 16, 2005 at 9:49 am
19I say 97% is good enough. Korea and Iran don’t have a delivery vehicle that can make it this far. So, they aren’t the problem. It is those darn Cubans that we have to watch out for!
Steve
February 16, 2005 at 9:51 am
20Adam, you are my hero for slipping in a Thomas Pynchon reference.
You would be doubly my hero if you have actually read Gravity’s Rainbow cover to cover.
Triply my hero if you can tell me what exactly in the hell it’s about.
Quadruply my hero if you can stop this throbbing pain in the middle of my forehead from just thinking about the subject.
ellen
February 16, 2005 at 2:41 pm
21Nor will I take “impossible” or “ludicrous” or “a huge waste of time and money” for an answer.
Tee hee.
Jerry
February 18, 2005 at 6:54 pm
22Emmarie -
re: “Call this a stupid question, but what happens to the missles we fire and then don’t shoot down?”
The same thing that happens to the missiles they “shoot down.” A sophisticated algorithmic analysis is applied to the trajectories of the two missiles, the projected best-case capabilities of the interceptor missle, the projected worst-case weaknesses of of the agressor missile, and after that stringent analysis, whether the “attack” is successful or not, the agressor missile is destructed by radio command. So we know that this multi-billion dollar boondongle is a brilliant success! As long as the agressor doesn’t apply any of the multitude of countermeasures known to anyone who thinks for a couple seconds or reads Science, Popular Science, or Scientific American. And our missiles work much better than they have in tests.