1.

World

U.S. AND CZECHS SIGN MISSILE DEFENSE DEAL
By Jan Cienski

Financial Times (London)
July 8, 2008

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/61abdad0-4cf3-11dd-b527-000077b07658.html

The U.S. and the Czech Republic signed an agreement on Tuesday to build a radar base in the former Soviet bloc country as part of a planned extension of the U.S. missile defense shield to central Europe.

Washington says the shield would defend it and its European allies against missile attacks from a foe such as Iran, and points to intelligence suggesting Tehran could develop a long-range missile capable of striking its soil by 2015.

However, the agreement signed by Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. secretary of state, and Karel Schwarzenberg, her Czech counterpart, only marks partial progress towards the construction of the controversial system.

Talks between the U.S. and Poland over stationing 10 missile interceptors on Polish territory are still in crisis following Warsaw’s rejection last week of the terms offered by Washington.

Missile defense has little popular support in either country, and the center-right government of Mirek Topolanek, the Czech prime minister, still has the tricky task of steering the treaty through the Czech parliament, where his coalition only has 100 of 200 parliamentary seats.

That did not stop Mr. Topolanek from comparing the program to a new Marshal Plan that would help defend the free world.

The radar base will be located in Brdy, a hilly area about 90km south-west of Prague where local opposition has been fierce.

There had been suggestions that Ms. Rice would visit Warsaw as part of her central European tour, but that appears unlikely in light of the problems in negotiating an agreement on the missile base.

Poland is holding out for at least one permanently based Patriot air defense missile system, Bogdan Klich, the Polish defense minister, told Polish television on Tuesday. The U.S. had offered a battery that would occasionally rotate through Poland.

As well as the Patriots, Poland wants U.S. aid to modernize its military, and U.S. security guarantees. Russia strongly opposes the presence of the system in central Europe, arguing that it is destabilizing, and has threatened to target the bases with its own missiles.

“Without a security guarantee, the missile defense shield will not be installed in Poland,” Zbigniew Chlebowski, parliamentary leader of the ruling Civic Platform party, told Polish radio.

Radoslaw Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, met Ms. Rice in Washington on Monday, and said that an agreement between Warsaw and Washington is still possible sometime this month.

2.

U.S. AND CZECH REPUBLIC SIGN DEFENSE AGREEMENT
By Anne Gearan

Associated Press
July 8, 2008

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070800448.html

PRAGUE -- The United States and the Czech Republic on Tuesday signed an initial agreement to base a U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe, saying the system will help protect U.S. allies from a bellicose and unpredictable Iran.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the shield is a good deal for the Czech Republic and for Poland, where the United States hopes to place another part of the system, although Warsaw hasn't yet agreed.

The next American president will have to decide whether and how to go forward with the missile defense system, Rice said, adding that the threat from Iran is growing and it is hard to imagine any administration giving up an effective deterrent.

"It's hard for me to believe that that's not a capability an American president is going to want to have," Rice said.

Rice signed the agreement along with Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg.

"This treaty will not only increase security of the Czech Republic but also of Europe," and beyond, Schwarzenberg said.

Rice has all but ruled out a stop in Poland this week to finalize plans for a U.S. missile defense shield in Europe, saying Tuesday that the United States has answered Polish demands for military hardware and the final agreement rests with Polish authorities.

The U.S. diplomat had hoped to make the week's visit in Eastern Europe a clean sweep for the unproven anti-missile defense system, which is bitterly opposed by Russia as an affront to its sovereignty and a potential threat should the system one day be used against Moscow.

"We are at a place where these negotiations need to come to a conclusion," Rice told reporters. There was little point in going to Warsaw unless the Poles were ready to move ahead, which appeared unlikely, Rice said.

The missile systems, which the United States says are a defense against long-range weapons from the Middle East and especially Iran, are highly unpopular in both the Czech Republic and in Poland, the former Soviet satellite states where the United States wants to place missiles and interceptors in the next five years.

"Ballistic missile proliferation is not an imaginary threat," Rice said after meeting Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek. She said Iran continues to perfect the tools it might one day use to build a bomb, along with long-range missiles that could carry a warhead.

The Bush administration is trying to arrange deals before President Bush leaves office in January.

The proposed U.S. missile defense system calls for a tracking radar in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptor missiles in Poland.

Talks with Poland had bogged down recently over Polish demands for billions of dollars worth of U.S. military aid, in part to deter a possible strike from a peeved Russia.

Rice's Czech host said he hopes his parliament will approve the deal, and noted that friction on the Polish side should not reflect on his own country's efforts.

"If the negotiations between the United States and Poland get complicated that doesn't mean that we failed but the contrary, that is our negotiations were very hard, realistic and led to a conclusion," Topolanek said.

Moscow has threatened to aim its own missiles at any eventual base in Poland or the Czech Republic.

Flying to Prague, Rice said she had laid out the U.S. position at a hastily called meeting in Washington with Poland's foreign minister. She would not go into details, but Poland is trying to sweeten or shore up U.S. pledges for millions in additional U.S. military aid. Rice said she explained what the United States can do and that the matter now rests with others for further discussion.

That marks a setback from last week when U.S. negotiators thought they had the outline of a deal that Rice could seal during a three-day trip to Eastern Europe. Warsaw rebuffed that tentative deal Friday, in strong language that U.S. diplomats said came as a surprise.

U.S. and Polish officials said talks would continue.

Even with signed deals in place it is not clear that the system would ever be built, or that it would be the effective counter to Iran that the United States claims.

There are still open negotiations on a second Czech treaty dealing with the legal status of U.S. soldiers to be deployed at the planned radar base. Even more difficult will be parliamentary approval for both documents.

The three-party governing coalition enjoys the support of only half of the 200 lawmakers in the Czech parliament's lower chamber, not enough to ratify any deal. About two-thirds of Czechs say they oppose the missile defense deal, according to a number of polls.

The government plans to submit the deal with U.S. to the parliament for a heated and lengthy debate only after the next general elections planned for 2010.

--Associated Press Writer Karel Janicek contributed to this report.

3.

U.S. AND CZECHS SIGN MISSILE DEAL TO MOSCOW'S DISMAY
By Arshad Mohammed and Jan Lopatka

Reuters
July 8, 2008

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070800636.html

PRAGUE -- The United States and the Czech Republic signed an agreement on Tuesday to build part of a U.S. missile defense shield in the central European state despite opposition from its former Cold War master Russia.

The U.S. and Czech foreign ministers toasted with champagne after signing the accord to place a tracking radar southwest of Prague as part of a system to protect against the perceived threat of missile attacks from countries such as Iran.

Their celebration, however, was tempered by criticism from Russia, which fears the system could undermine its nuclear deterrent, and by the U.S. failure so far to secure a companion deal to station 10 rocket interceptors in neighboring Poland.

Washington says the shield would defend itself and its allies against missile attacks from so-called "rogue states" and points to intelligence suggesting Iran could develop a long-range missile capable of striking its soil by 2015.

"We face, with the Iranians, and so do our allies and friends, a growing missile threat that is getting ever longer and ever deeper, and where the Iranian appetite for nuclear technology, to this point, is still unchecked," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said after signing the deal.

However, the deal has its critics in the United States, who argue that the system has not demonstrated its capability under real operational conditions, and it is opposed by many in the Czech Republic, where it requires parliamentary approval.

Under the proposed $3.5 billion system, sensors and radar would detect an enemy missile in flight and guide a ground-based interceptor to destroy it without explosives.

ARMS RACE

Many Czechs are wary of any foreign military presence after the Soviet invasion in 1968 and the ensuing two decades of occupation. An opinion poll last month showed 68 percent of Czechs were against the shield, while 24 percent supported it.

"We believe that this could start another arms race," said Frantisek Smrcka, who with other protesters in the Czech capital unfurled a huge banner shaped like a bull's-eye.

Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg argued it was best for the Czech Republic, which is a member of the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to bind itself to the West.

"The Czech Republic can feel safe only if on the one hand it is anchored in the European society -- economically as well as security-wise -- on the other hand there's our relationship with the NATO," he said.

Russia, which has opposed the steady march of the Western security alliance toward its borders, wasted no time voicing its unhappiness over the pact and suggested it called into question U.S.-Russian talks on missile defense cooperation.

"A step has been taken . . . which in our view has not added to security on the European continent. More than that, it has complicated problems of security," Interfax news agency quoted a senior Russian foreign ministry source as saying.

Moscow and Washington had agreed to explore ways of easing the Kremlin's concerns the shield would be used to spy on and target Russia's own missile systems. Proposals under discussion had included stationing Russian military officers at the shield sites and providing real-time video of activity there.

The shield is a major priority for U.S. President George W. Bush, who hopes to finalize an accord on the interceptors with Poland before he leaves office in January. After that, the system's fate will be decided by his successor.

U.S. officials, who last week said they had a tentative deal with Poland that required final approval from Warsaw, were dismayed when Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk publicly said the pact was unacceptable and that further talks were needed.

The talks have run into a snag over Poland's demands for billions of dollars to modernize its army and air defenses.

Rice told reporters that she had constructive discussions with the Polish foreign minister in Washington on Monday but she stressed that the United States had been generous in its offer and declined to predict whether a deal would be struck.

She all but ruled out the possibility of adding a stop in Warsaw on her current trip to Prague, Sofia, and Tbilisi.

4.

U.S. SIGNS CZECH MISSILE DEFENSE DEAL
By David Charter

Times Online (London)
July 8, 2008

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4295309.ece

A U.S. missile defense system in Europe came a step closer today when Condoleezza Rice signed a formal agreement with the Czech Republic to host the radar for the controversial project.

The U.S. secretary of state hailed the agreement as a step forward for international security despite fierce opposition from Russia, which regards the proposed missile shield based in two former Communist countries as a hostile move.

After 14 months of negotiations, the U.S. is struggling to clinch agreement with its other proprosed partner -- Poland -- where it hopes to locate the interceptor missiles designed to shoot down any incoming rockets.

Washington insists that the system will not be targeted at Russia, but will act as a safeguard for Europe against hostile regimes such as Iran. The plan was endorsed by NATO in April.

"This missile defense agreement is significant as a building block not just for the security of the United States and the Czech Republic, but also for the security of NATO and the security of the international community as a whole," Ms. Rice said. "Ballistic missile proliferation is not an imaginary threat."

A change of government in Poland last November saw the country introduce a range of demands including U.S. investment in its air defenses in return for siting the missiles.

Poland's tough negotiating position has even led to a threat from the Pentagon to find an alternative site in the Baltic state of Lithuania.

"There are remaining issues, but the United States has made a very generous offer [to the Poles]," said Ms. Rice today.

A year ago at the G8 in Germany, President Vladimir Putin of Russia surprised the U.S. by suggesting that the radar could be hosted in Azerbaijan so that the technology could be shared.

Today's signing ceremony seemed to bury that idea. Addressing Russian anxiety about the anti-missile system in what used to be its backyard, Ms Rice added: "We want the system to be transparent to the Russians."

Mirek Topolanek, the Czech Prime Minister, said that the deal was an example of "our joint desire to protect the free world" and said his country could not afford to miss out as it had done after the Second World War, when it fell under Soviet influence.

"We were in the past in a similar situation and then we failed. We did not accept the Marshall Plan . . . we should not allow a second error of this kind," he said.

In Prague, where polls consistently show a majority of Czechs opposed to hosting the U.S. radar, protestors from Greenpeace unrolled a large banner proclaiming "Do not make a target of us."

After Prague, Ms. Rice will visit Bulgaria and Georgia where she will stress U.S. support for Tblisi's application for NATO membership, another annoyance for Russia.

She will also appeal for calm between Moscow and Tblisi over the separatist Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

"We have said both Georgia and Russia need to avoid provocative behaviour but frankly some of the things the Russians did over the last couple of months added to tension in the region," Ms. Rice said.

"Georgia is an independent state. It has to be treated like one. I want to make very clear that the U.S. commitment to Georgia's territorial integrity is strong."

The radar agreement still has to pass through the Czech parliament where the government only has a slim majority.

5.

Editor's cut

MISSILE DEFENSE: 'LONGEST RUNNING SCAM' EXPOSED
By Katrina vanden Heuvel

Nation
March 7, 2008

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=295515

In Congress yesterday, Representative John Tierney, Chair of the House National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, convened the first in a series of hearings to examine a U.S. missile defense program that is out of control, straining relations with allies, and renewing an arms race with Russia.

This is the first comprehensive review of the program since 1993 -- the year before Republicans took control of Congress -- and it’s long overdue. The focus yesterday was on the extent of the missile threat -- as compared to other security vulnerabilities -- and whether spending more than $10 billion annually on ballistic missile defense (BMD) is justifiable from that perspective.

In his opening statement, Rep. Tierney pointed out that we have spent over $120 billion on missile defense in the past 25 years; that the annual budget is expected to double by 2013 to $19 billion; and that the current $10 billion per year is equal to one-third of the Homeland Security budget, roughly equal to the State Department budget, greater than the FEMA budget, 20 times greater than public diplomacy expenditures, and 30 times greater than Peace Corps.

Dr. Stephen Flynn, Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and a retired Coast Guard Commander, testified that the “non-missile risk” -- smuggling a weapon of mass destruction into the U.S. by ship, train, truck, or private jet -- is “far greater than the ballistic missile threat. . . .” He noted that smuggling is the only realistic option for a terrorist group like al Qaeda; it offers anonymity to any attacking nation and therefore protection from retaliation; seaports, borders, and overseas flights “provide a rich menu of non-missile options”; and it has greater potential to “generate cascading economic consequences by disrupting global supply chains.”

Despite these risks, Flynn said, “The combined budgets for funding all the domestic and international port of entry interdiction efforts . . . is equal to roughly one-half of the annual budget for developing missile defense. Nowhere in the U.S. government has there been or is there now an evaluation of whether that represents an appropriate balance. . . . The amount of resources we dedicate to the [more serious threat of cargo delivery] is miniscule compared to the kinds of resources we invest in dealing with the ballistic missile threat. That’s the kind of disconnect we’re operating in.”

Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund and author of *Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons*, provided the Committee with an even more pointed assessment. He recalled his past work for the House Armed Services Committee and the National Security Subcommittee during the Cold War. “At that time, we were not worried about a prototype Iranian missile that might or might not be deployed. We were worried about 5,000 Soviet warheads . . . destroying not just our country but most likely this planet. I have known ballistic missile threats, I have researched ballistic missile threats. Mr. Chairman, this is not a serious ballistic missile threat that we face today. . . . [It] is limited and changing relatively slowly. There is every reason to believe that it can be addressed through measured military preparedness and aggressive diplomacy.”

Cirincione, who organized the last serious hearings on the program as a staff member of the Government Operations Committee, pointed out that there are fewer ballistic missiles today than 10-20 years ago; fewer hostile missiles potentially threatening the U.S.; there are five more countries that have started medium-range missile programs but they are poorer and less technologically advanced than the countries that had long-range ballistic missile programs some 20 years ago, and the total number of medium-range missiles has decreased by 80 percent.

“The vast majority of nations with ballistic missiles have only short-range missiles with ranges under 1000 kilometers, basically Scuds,” Cirincione said. “This is often ignored when officials or experts cite the ‘30 countries with ballistic missile capability.’ That’s true, there are approximately 28. But of these, 17 have only Scud-B missiles or similar. Most of these are friends or allies.”

Rep. Stephen Lynch asked whether the allocation of resources is proportional to the threat.

“Absolutely not. I believe that the Ballistic Missile Defense program is the longest-running scam in the history of the Department of Defense,” Cirincione said. “This is an enormous waste of money, and if you leave this decision to the Joint Chiefs they won’t spend anything near what this Administration is requesting. In fact, the last time the Joint Chiefs were asked about this in 1993, [they] recommended to then-Pres. Clinton that we spend only $3 billion a year on these kinds of programs, and of that $2.3 billion should be spent on efforts to intercept short-range missiles -- the ones that are a real threat to our troops and allies. . . . We’re no further along in our ability to actually hit a real ballistic missile now than we were 20 years ago.”

Both Cirincione and Flynn pointed to the disturbing fact that there is no comprehensive threat assessment comparing missile and non-missile threats to our security. “We haven’t done a good threat assessment -- an intelligence estimate that looks at the non-missile threat and the missile threat,” Flynn said.

Cirincione agreed. “I believe that in order for Congress to judge whether these sums are necessary they need a comprehensive assessment of the ballistic missile threat. Congress has never -- never -- gotten this kind of assessment. . . . We need a comprehensive threat assessment of what the most serious security threats are facing the United States, and then budget allocations based on that.”

Steven Hildreth, specialist in missile defense and nonproliferation for the Congressional Research Service, also warned that threats about a nuclear-armed Korea or Iran might be exaggerated. He testified to “the importance of examining assertions concerning weapon system development and performance.” Hildreth noted that in 50 years, only five countries have been able “to develop, test and field ICBMs armed with nuclear warheads” because “the technical, organizational, and management challenges . . . [are] daunting. . . . Each and every [aspect] presents a multitude of technological challenges and hurdles to overcome that is not easily done.” Hildreth also said that these weapons cannot be hidden, and that they have to be tested in an “observable” way. Despite these facts, Hildreth said, “There have been any number of intelligence assessments and studies that predicted there would be more than five nations that could have accomplished this capability at various times in the past 40 to 50 years. . . . This perspective is lacking in so many of the discussions about ICBM threats today.”

With the Administration requesting a record $12.3 billion for missile defense this year, pushing its European-based missile defense system on Czech and Polish citizens who want nothing to do with it, and fueling a new arms race with Russia, the need to put an end to this madness is clear. The jig is up, and hopefully Tierney’s hearings will reveal the absolute folly at the root of the Missile Defense Program, and return us to a sane and proven path of diplomacy and nuclear nonproliferation negotiations.

--Katrina vanden Heuvel is Editor and Publisher of the Nation.

6.

MORE PROFITS IN PATRIOT?
By Antoine Boessenkool

** Upgrades Create New Opportunities for Raytheon **

Defense News
June 30, 2008

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3609853&c=FEA&s=BUS

Raytheon recently won about $350 million in contracts from Taiwan and South Korea related to its Patriot missile defense system, additional swells to a wave of contract wins for the system made famous by the Gulf War of the early 1990s.

The company now has Patriot customers in 10 countries outside the United States and is looking to expand. International opportunities, plus Patriot system upgrades in the United States, make the timing ideal for the Waltham, Mass., company's recent investments in the system, according to the head of the new Patriot division.

"Internationally, the market is very bright," said Sanjay Kapoor, vice president of Patriot programs. "The window is perfect as the U.S. is upgrading" to the latest Patriot system, which Raytheon calls Configuration 3. "Some of the international customers are also going to do the same thing."

Raytheon has made Patriot a new division within its Integrated Defense Systems (IDS) business and has brought in new leadership, including Kapoor, the former chief financial officer for all of IDS. It's also centralized Patriot operations by bringing employees working worldwide on the system to its facility in Andover, Mass., and has made other investments, buying additional parts and new test gear.

Revenue related to Patriot used to make up more than half of IDS' revenue and is less than half now, but Kapoor sees the revenue returning to its former level. IDS had $4.7 billion in revenue last year.

The company is upgrading the U.S. Army's Patriot missile defense units to Configuration 3. A unit consists of a radar; a manned station that processes radar information and communicates with the battalion; and, for the Army, four or five launchers of interceptor missiles.

Units can handle up to 16 launchers, but Patriot units worldwide use fewer launchers, said Al Del Checcolo, director of special projects for Patriot programs at Raytheon. Last year, Raytheon had more than $600 million in U.S. contracts related to Patriot, including $460 million in contracts to upgrade Army Patriot units to Configuration 3.

"Configuration 3 basically is the last in a series of changes that were made from lessons learned from the Desert Storm conflict" in 1991, Del Checcolo said. The first upgraded system was fielded in 1999, but in 2006, the Army decided to upgrade substantially all of its 93 Patriot units.

"Some of the major advances are that the ground area that the Patriot systems can cover and protect now is much, much larger than it was when we went into Desert Storm," he said.

Missile launchers can now be placed up to 30 kilometers, or 18.6 miles, in front of the radar rather than right next to it. The upgrade also allows the system's radar to isolate an incoming missile's warhead using the unique characteristics it shows among other missile debris, solving an earlier problem.

The Patriot made its combat debut in 1991 in the Gulf War, when it defended U.S. military forces and allies by firing missiles that intercepted incoming Iraqi Scud missiles. After they were hit, the breakup of the Scuds in flight would overload Patriot radars, which tried to home in on all the debris rather than just the warhead, Del Checcolo said.

The recent upgrades also allowed the Army's Patriot fire units to launch the Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC)-3, a newer missile made by Lockheed Martin and the only ground-based, terminal defense system designed to stop weapons of mass destruction, according to Lockheed Martin.

The PAC-3 is a kinetic energy weapon designed to directly strike the warhead in an enemy missile. It also strikes its target at a higher altitude than Raytheon's Guidance Enhanced Missile-Tactical (GEM T), a refurbished version of earlier missiles from Raytheon. The GEM T variant explodes a warhead near its target, driving shrapnel into it.

The Army plans to keep Patriot systems in the field until 2028, and international customers for the systems are committed beyond 2028, Del Checcolo said.

The contracts with South Korea and Taiwan are to upgrade or augment Patriot systems, and additional revenue could come as other current Patriot customers such as Saudi Arabia look to upgrade their systems.

Patriot will continue to improve and evolve, said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, an independent research group in Alexandria, Va. That makes it attractive to other countries.

With the Patriot system, "You're buying into a program that has substantial U.S. government support," Pike said. "If problems emerge, you've got a rich uncle who will throw money at the problem to fix it."

French, Russian, Israeli, and Chinese companies may all be competitors for Patriot, but the Russian government, for example, isn't going to invest heavily to move its missile defense systems ahead, according to Pike.

On the other hand, if a country wants to have a missile defense system "on the cheap," it might be more likely to buy from one of Raytheon's foreign competitors, such as a Russian supplier. Also, there are countries that Raytheon won't be selling to, such as Iran.

Moreover, "there are a lot of countries out there that just don't think there's going to be a war, not one that they have to deal with, so trying to persuade them that they need a missile defense system might be a hard sell," Pike said.

Kapoor is optimistic about Patriot's prospects.

"This is a unique moment for us to try and make some real growth things happen for the [Patriot] business," he said. "Clearly, the biggest challenge we're going to have is to try and do things differently, but at the same time, maintain the legacy and the experience that the company has enjoyed and has on this particular program."

E-mail: aboessenkool @defensenews.com.

7.

THE MONEY DEFENSE SHIELD
By Paul Rogat Loeb

Christian Science Monitor
July 25, 2001

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0725/p9s1.html

SEATTLE -- I once sat on a plane in front of two drunk arms traders, on a flight from Dallas to Washington. They'd sold helicopters to both sides during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. When the helicopters got shot down, the countries bought more, then more again, so the arms traders made more money each round. They laughed wildly about this, considering it a perfect deal.

This incident came to mind when I heard the Bush administration talk of kindly sharing their proposed national missile-defense system with their allies. Why not? The more countries, the more orders. And the more benefits to those truly protected and benefited by this project -- the weapons producers who've spent more than $40 million in the past two years on campaign contributions and lobbying.

A group of Lockheed Martin employees essentially acknowledged this when I gave a talk, a few years ago, at their Missile & Space Division in Sunnyvale, Calif. The company had invited me to discuss a book of mine on the values of current students -- their future employees. I hesitated, then decided to speak as honestly as I could, even though it would mean raising discomforting questions. Introduced by a former Air Force general then serving as a Lockheed Martin vice president, I talked about the generation's complex worldview and their struggles to engage some of the critical issues of our time. When students feel that the world is corrupt, I said, they often point to the political clout of weapons companies, citing corporate bailouts, pork-barrel contracts, and military systems that are useless but still make millions. I mentioned how Boeing, before it acquired Rockwell and McDonnell Douglas, had more staffers in its Washington, D.C., lobbying office than the entire D.C. staff of Washington State's congressional and senatorial delegations combined. The students were beginning to believe, I said, that political access comes only when you give at the door.

After mentioning some respected critics of military buildups, such as former Reagan administration Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb, I cited the famed Eisenhower quote: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in a final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed -- those who are cold and not clothed."

Since the average American household now pays more than $200 a year in taxes to finance Lockheed Martin's government contracts, I challenged the audience to question their corporate culture and not assume that just because a contract provided money and jobs, it automatically served a greater common good. I specifically questioned some of the company's missile-defense systems, which critics were calling politically destabilizing and technologically problematic. A man in the audience jumped in to defend the company's role in developing them.

Then one of his colleagues spoke up. "Let's get real," he said. "We all know that if anyone ever attacks America, the bomb is going to be delivered by a suitcase, a car, a truck, or in a boat. It's not going to come from a missile, because you can track where a missile comes from and retaliate. We all know that we're lobbying for these programs because they make us money. We don't care whether they'll ever work, or even be useful. We care that the dollars come our way."

The room was silent. The original questioner answered briefly, but no one else jumped in. The conversation moved on to my original topic of the students. It was as if people were ashamed to respond.

I'm not saying that all who embrace the national missile-defense proposals do so for venal reasons. Some do believe in them. Building an invincible technological shield has been a core dream of the political right since President Reagan's first "star wars" plans, albeit a dream spearheaded by think tanks that companies like Boeing, Raytheon, TRW, and Lockheed Martin have lavishly supported. The engineers and designers who support it want the chance to take on what J. Robert Oppenheimer (who directed the creation of the first atomic bomb), once called the "technically sweet" challenge of building complex and challenging technological systems, whatever their consequences.

But we've spent $45 billion on star-wars systems and $95 billion on total missile-defense efforts since Reagan embraced the idea, with little beyond failed tests to show for it.

Let's leave aside the endless reasons why national missile defense will never work. Leave aside all the ways that -- even if it did -- it would only undermine hard-won arms-control treaties, destabilize global politics, move us back toward nuclear confrontation, and squander more than $200 billion of resources that could otherwise provide health-care, hire teachers, rebuild our communities, or protect our environment. Do we have the political honesty, like the Lockheed Martin employee who spoke out, to acknowledge that this entire proposal may be largely about political payback? The true shield it's designed to create would not protect people and communities. But it would protect the massive profits of the companies that build it -- whatever the costs to the rest of us.

--Paul Loeb (www.soulofacitizen.org) is the author of Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time (St. Martin's Press).