Thursday, May 24, 2007

The Space Review: Is the Japanese-US missile defense program changing the Asian military balance? by Taylor Dinerman


Missile defense launch
Missile defense systems in the Far East could change the balance of power there. (credit: USAF)

Monday, April 10, 2006

While the war against terror in Iraq and Afghanistan continues, progress on the Bush Administration’s Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) continues almost unnoticed. The latest report from the Missile Defense Agency says that by early 2007 the US will have installed 20 or more GMD ground based mid-course interceptor missiles at Fort Greely in Alaska and at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. They will also have deployed 18 SM-3 sea-based missiles and will have stockpiled roughly 450 short-range PAC-3 Patriots. By January 2009, when the President leaves office, these numbers will probably have doubled.

An array of BMDS sensors are now deployed and integrated, including the DSP early warning satellites, a pair of upgraded radars in California and Alaska, and a ground-based X-band radar in Japan. The US Navy has modified a dozen or more Aegis cruisers and destroyers, making them part of the BMDS sensor network. More sensors will soon be integrated into the system including a sea-based X-band radar off the coast of Alaska and the old early warning radar at Flylingdales in the UK.

Within a few more years, when Japan acquires its own PAC-3s and SM-3s, the threat of Pyongyang’s ballistic missiles will be reduced to insignificance.

Other programs such as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and the Airborne Laser (ABL) programs are moving ahead having, it seems, overcome most of their technological and engineering problems. The GMD missiles have not been fully tested and they are not expected to finish the testing and certification process for years to come. They do, along with the SM-3s, constitute a “rudimentary” national missile defense and this fact is an important change in the world balance of military power.

The US is no longer just researching missile defenses but, having built and deployed the first elements, it is now “thickening” them. The process could conceivably be reversed by a liberal Democratic President and Congress, but that is unlikely. Over the next decade or so a multilayered missile defense system will be built up and it will include hundreds of both ground- and sea-based mid-course interceptors. By 2010 THAAD will be deployed to provide at least some places in America with a terminal, last-ditch defense.

In Asia US missile defense programs, with increasing Japanese involvement, are changing the balance of power against North Korea and to a lesser extent against China. In 2001, if North Korea wanted to use its ballistic missiles against US bases in Japan or against purely Japanese targets, there was little, if anything, either nation could do about it. A small number of Patriot PAC 2s might have been available but these would have been of limited use.

Today, if the US were to deploy a substantial number of PAC-3s along with a few SM-3s, a North Korean attack involving all of its approximately 100 Nodong 1 and 2 missiles would result in losing as much as half, if not more, to the Patriots. Within a few more years, when Japan acquires its own PAC-3s and SM-3s, the threat of Pyongyang’s ballistic missiles will be reduced to insignificance. There is always a chance that a single nuclear-tipped missile could get through, and that would be a human and economic catastrophe, but as Japan thickens its national defenses that possibility becomes less and less likely.

This does not mean that the Japan and the US can completely ignore North Korea’s ravings, but it does mean that the irrationality that the Stalinist regime uses as part of its normal diplomatic procedures does not need to be taken as seriously as it once was. Due to increasingly effective defenses, the incentives to accommodate Pyongyang are now far fewer.

China is a different kind of problem. Its leadership shows few signs of the kind of extreme hostility to Japan and the US that we see from the North Koreans. Both nations in the alliance have strong economic relations with the People’s Republic and everyone involved has a stake in global growth and prosperity. This does not rule out a possible arms race or confrontation, but it makes them less likely.

In the most recent issue of the establishmentarian journal Foreign Affairs there is an article titled “The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy”. The authors describe how China’s force of 18 liquid-fueled ICBMs could be fairly easily destroyed by a US first strike. While they seem to think that the current “rudimentary” missile defense would be overwhelmed by the “cloud of warheads and decoys launched by Russia and China” (though it would seem pretty hard to launch such a “cloud” with only 18 missiles) they see the value of the missile defense system “as an adjunct to a US first-strike capability, not a stand alone shield.” True, perhaps, but as the system is improved and as new layers are added it becomes not only more and more credible as a “standalone shield” but it also could play a useful role against a “third strike” in a major nuclear conflict of the kind Herman Kahn used to write about.

China’s ability to strike the US homeland is diminishing every year the US continues to build up these defenses and the cost of reestablishing this capability will go on increasing. The effectiveness of the GMD and SM-3 interceptors will only grow, and as they are joined by THAAD and possibly by a “Son of Brilliant Pebbles” space-based system, China will find that it has lost most of its nuclear options against the US homeland and perhaps against Japan as well.

China’s ability to strike the US homeland is diminishing every year the US continues to build up these defenses and the cost of reestablishing this capability will go on increasing.

This does not rule out the chance of a war between the US-Japan alliance and China over the fate of Taiwan or North Korea, but it makes such conflicts far less likely. In particular it creates a strong incentive for China to cooperate in putting pressure on Pyongyang to modify its behavior. China cannot now hope to use North Korea to weaken the US and Japan; instead, North Korea’s behavior has had the effect of strengthening the US and Japan and thus reducing China’s overall relative strength. A less belligerent North Korea will cease to push the two Pacific democracies together and might allow the reemergence of their old commercial rivalries.

Japan does not want to take any chances and is now talking about building and launching their own national early warning satellites. It will be years before they can do this and in the meantime Japan will depend on the US DSPs and on SBIRS, if that program survives. However, no matter what Japan does to maintain their options for independent operations, they must realize that a joint, integrated US-Japan missile defense system such as the one now taking shape is far more effective when both nations’ assets are combined.

The increasingly effective US-Japanese missile defense system significantly affects the security interests of three other nations in the region. South Korea will benefit from the restraint put on its northern neighbor. Australia will also find that an increase in trans-Pacific security rebounds to its own advantage and will allow it to pursue relations with both the US and China. Most interestingly, India may find that the rhetoric from both New Delhi and Washington about the US not wanting to use India against China the way the Nixon administration used China against the USSR is not just diplomatic hot air, if China does not need to be “counterbalanced against” because of its declining nuclear capability. Then the US and India can pursue their relationship with only an occasional glance over the shoulder at China, and concentrate on the problems and dangers that exist to the west of the great subcontinent.

Taylor Dinerman is an author and journalist based in New York City.

Happy Independence Day Iraq By Cal Thomas


Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Demonstrators and the media have been reminding us of the fourth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. This may the beginning of the fifth year of this war, but it is only one skirmish in a conflict with a lengthier past and a long future. Pundits, politicians and protestors who want to isolate Iraq from the rest of the world war, of which it is just one part, suffer from tunnel vision.

This larger war did not begin on March 20, 2003. The first shot may have been fired in 1968 when three members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine hijacked an El Al plane bound for Israel. Or, it might have begun in 1948 when Israel was officially reconstituted in its ancient homeland by the United Nations and recognized by the United States and other countries. The goal of Israel's neighbors is its elimination, a goal that has not changed despite promises, assurances, and several "peace" agreements signed in the diplomatic equivalent of disappearing ink. Maybe the war started when the American Marine barracks in Beirut were hit with a truck bomb in 1983, killing 241 U.S. servicemen.

This war will not end in the next year, in another four years, or perhaps in 100 years, in spite of the meaningless "Out of Iraq Now" signs carried in last Saturday's protest near the Pentagon. The sentiment is meaningless because war opponents never say, nor will they take responsibility for, what would come next, which most assuredly would be disaster and a greater threat to America.

This war is unlike any the world has ever seen. It is without borders, though our enemy operates within and across borders; it is without a state, though al-Qaida would like to make Iraq its headquarters; and it is without reason. No theocrat wishing to impose his or her narrow vision of God and government on everyone ever debates politics and theology with dissenters, they simply slaughter those who disagree, ending debate before it begins.

That the war could have been planned and executed better is without question. More than "mistakes were made." There were serious errors in judgment that have led to needless deaths and injuries. But that is for the historians to sort out. We must win this war, or Islamofascism will win it. There can be no turning back. The only thing the enemy understands is humiliation and defeat. They must be given a double dose of each so that they will abandon violence and oppression for generations to come.

Premature hope can be a dangerous thing, but hope can be like the first signs of spring: a foretaste of more pleasant things to come.

The British media, which have been more critical of the Bush administration's Iraq policy than the American media, are displaying some signs of optimism about the war. Sunday's Times reported the results of an Opinion Research Business Poll of more than 5,000 Iraqis. It said the majority is "optimistic," despite their suffering in sectarian violence. This despite the fact that 26 percent of Iraqis report a family member has been murdered. In Baghdad, 33 percent has had a relative kidnapped and 35 percent said members of their family had fled abroad. And yet, when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam Hussein or elected Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, 49 percent of those polled said they were better off today.

Despite the regular use of the term "civil war" in the media to describe the continuing, but apparently diminishing violence in and near Baghdad, only 27 percent of those polled described it as such; 61 percent did not.

There are other signs of budding optimism. In Karadeh, formerly an affluent shopping area of Baghdad, some shops have started to reopen and murderous sectarian checkpoints have begun to disappear, as Iraqi and American security forces dominate more of the capital.

If this surge continues to work and hopeful buds turn to blossoms of freedom for Iraqis, there will be many American politicians with more than egg on their faces. Congressional war opponents will deserve to lose the next election because of the worst possible display of bad judgment.

If stability is achieved and freedom preserved, March 20, 2003, will no longer be seen as the "beginning" of a war, but as Independence Day for a nation whose renaissance may just turn the tide of this world war in freedom's direction.

Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated op-ed columnist and co-author of Blinded by Might.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Global Warming a.k.a. Climate Change

Chicken Little Lives


By William L. Kovacs
June 2002

We know the story of Chicken Little. The little chick thought the sky was falling because she was hit in the head by an acorn. She convinced the other barnyard animals that the sky was falling and soon they were all in hysterics.

Well, when it comes to global warming, environmentalists have adopted a Chicken Little approach. Recent news reports have fanned global warming hysteria over the contents of a Bush administration report on climate change. Environmentalists focused on two sentences out of 255 pages to “prove” that permanent global warming is being caused by human activity and that major ecosystems will disappear, water supplies will be permanently disrupted and we will suffer an ever-increasing number of stifling heat waves.

“Environmental havoc” was the description of our future in The New York Times, which claims the report “unambiguously states that humans are the likely cause of most of the recent warming.” Some talk radio hosts went further, claiming that cities such as Miami and Mobile would be underwater one day.

The 2002 Climate Change report needs to be read. It states that its own projections “are limited by the paucity (smallness) of data available.” The report cautions “current estimates of the magnitude of future warmings should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments.” Later the report states “definitive prediction of potential outcomes is not yet feasible.”

The earth has been around for millions of years and one thing is certain: the weather changes dramatically. The earth has experienced ice ages as well as warming periods. The North and South poles are 50 degrees Fahrenheit colder than they were when dinosaurs roamed the earth and a vast tropical forest dominated North and South America. Our climate has remained somewhat stable for the last 10,000 years, with the exception of a Little Ice Age in the 14th century. In the 1970’s, hearings took place on Capitol Hill about a coming Ice Age. Today, Capitol Hill hearings look at global warming. The political winds change faster than the weather.

Worrying about the weather is harmless until Congress actually believes it can do something about it. The problem is that solutions based on the belief that the “sky is falling” would drastically limit the amount of energy that we can use to run our businesses, homes, cars, computers and every aspect of our lives. Based on a Wharton study, the impacts of limiting our use of energy to reduce global warming gases – as proposed by the Kyoto Climate Change Treaty – would lower our annual gross domestic product by about $300 billion; cause the loss of more than 2.4 million jobs; and raise the annual energy bill for every household by $3,700. Even if the United States limited global warming gases, developing nations will not reduce their own emissions and the net impact would be zero.

The Bush Administration needs to stay on its course and continue to reject the Kyoto Treaty. It should spend the billion or so dollars needed to develop good science and sound computer models to evaluate the problem. It needs to ensure that developing nations use the most energy efficient technologies, so that emissions of global warming gases are reduced while these countries become more competitive.

Finally, the Bush administration needs to stop apologizing for using common sense. It can’t change the weather. “Environmental havoc” makes for catchy headlines, but the story is clear: long-range climate forecasts are less accurate than the local weatherman. The best the Bush administration can do is what the King did for Chicken Little – buy umbrellas for the hysterical, but stay focused on sound environmental progress without compromising our economic recovery and jobs.

William L. Kovacs is the Vice President of Environment and Regulatory Affairs at the United States Chamber of Commerce.

Joyce Comments: Dan and others interested in this subject should know that the debate still rages on and that there is NO universal acceptance of "Global Warming"/"Climate Change". I suggest you check out for more information. Also, you may want to turn your interest away from this baseless Fascist crusade to destroy the United States of America through shaking down our government with intimidation and ignorance and instead invest your time and energy into actually lessening pollution, if that is indeed your interest.

It's official: COT will be used full time in '08 season

It's official: COT will be used full time in '08 season

By Official Release
May 22, 2007
05:12 PM EDT

DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. -- NASCAR announced Tuesday that the Car of Tomorrow will be fully implemented for the 2008 Nextel Cup Series season.

The move accelerates the integration of the new car into the series by one full year. In January 2006, NASCAR had announced a three-year roll-out schedule that would conclude with the new car running in every race by 2009.

As the new car began its initial phase-in program over the past several months, team owners expressed support of the new car and its full implementation by the 2008 season. Therefore, starting next year the new car will run the entire Cup schedule.

"We are proud of how the new car has performed at multiple tracks," said Robin Pemberton, NASCAR's vice president of competition. "NASCAR, with the support of team owners, agreed that the new car is ready to compete at all NASCAR Nextel Cup Series events in 2008. Beginning next year the Car of Tomorrow is officially 'the car,' a Chevrolet, Dodge, Ford and Toyota."

The original transition program had the new car running 16 races in 2007; 26 races in '08; and the entire schedule in '09. So far this season, the new car has run five times -- at Bristol, Martinsville, Phoenix, Richmond and Darlington -- with the races featuring close competition on the track and the safety and durability features of the car well-demonstrated.

The average margin of victory through the first five Car of Tomorrow races has been a mere .505 seconds (compared to 1.286 seconds at these same races a year ago) and there have been six fewer DNFs through this same race sequence from 2006.

Additionally, 13 teams have used the same chassis for three of the five races; four teams have run the same chassis in four of the five races; and one team -- the No. 29 Chevrolet -- has run the same chassis in all five COT races.

The COT is the culmination of a seven-year project undertaken at NASCAR's Research and Development Center in Concord, N.C. The new car was built primarily with safety in mind, but during the development process, NASCAR also discovered ways in which the car could improve competition and enable teams to be more cost-efficient.

The design has also enabled manufacturers to have an increased product and branding opportunity. The manufacturers' 2007 COT models -- the Chevrolet Impala SS, Dodge Avenger, Ford Fusion and Toyota Camry -- more closely resemble production cars than the former race car did.

Monday, May 21, 2007

An Immigration Shipwreck in Sight

An Immigration Shipwreck in Sight

by Newt Gingrich

May 21, 2007
Vol. 2, No. 21

Dear Friend,
The announcement last week that the White House and a group of senators have reached an agreement on "comprehensive immigration reform" should have the same effect that the word "iceberg" had on the passengers and crew of the Titanic.

This proposed agreement is a disaster of the first order, and it would severely cripple America for the foreseeable future.

You can tell how bad this bill is by the Senate Democratic leadership's announced goal of trying to pass it before the Memorial Day weekend.

Remember, this bill has not yet been finished. Senators and their staffs were still negotiating over the weekend and many key items were still in confusion. So here's what we have to do:



75 Reasons to Oppose the New Immigration Bill

When the FBI arrested six terrorists in New Jersey two weeks ago it turned out that three of them had been in the U.S. illegally for at least TWENTY years.

These three had crossed our unprotected border and had been living in New Jersey.

But here's the even more outrageous part: The police had filed 75 (SEVENTY-FIVE!) charges against them, including drug possession and possession of drug paraphernalia.

In 75 interactions, the police never once learned that these three people were here illegally.

The government failed twice: First, by failing to secure the border, and second, by failing to determine that these people were here illegally. The result was that more than five years after 9/11 we were saved from a mass killing at Fort Dix only because of the patriotism and courage of a clerk at an electronics store.

Compare the 75 charges made against the would-be Fort Dix terrorists with how we rounded up German spies in World War II. In June 1942, it took a total of 15 days to track down and arrest eight German spies who landed in Florida and New York from submarines. We executed six of them and gave one life in prison and the other thirty years. We were serious about winning that war. Go here for a more detailed comparison and a list of the 75 charges against the Fort Dix terrorists.

Faced with this level of failure of bureaucracy, how could anyone believe for a minute that this new immigration bill will work? The fact is it can't and it won't. It will rely on the same failed bureaucracy and produce more years of failure.

We Have Been Here Before

In 1986, I voted for the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration bill. We were promised that in return for amnesty for far fewer than three million illegal immigrants we would get:

Control of the border;
Enforcement of laws requiring employers to know someone is here legally before hiring them; and
No more amnesty and no more tolerance of illegality

The government broke its word on every one of those provisions.

We eventually amnestied three million people who had broken the law, and we sent a signal to the world that it is okay to break the law and come to America.

Now, 20 years later, we are told to trust Washington while we amnesty 12 to 20 million more people who have broken the law.

A Tax Amnesty Too?

When its supporters refer to the new immigration bill as "comprehensive," they must mean comprehensively outrageous.

The Boston Globe reported this weekend that the new bill will not require illegal workers to pay back taxes.

If this is true, the bill is an assault on every law-abiding, patriotic American who has been obeying the law, working legally and paying his taxes.

Every taxpaying American should insist that any bill involving any condition for illegal workers having any future in America should require them to do three things when it comes to taxes: 1) Admit how long they've been here (under threat of immediate deportation if they lie); 2) admit whom they worked for (who, after all, had also been breaking the law and avoiding paying taxes); and 3) pay any back taxes and penalties they owe.

There Is a Way to Deal With Illegal Immigration -- This is Not It

I have written extensively about good solutions for our current immigration mess in Winning the Future and elsewhere. Click here for more information.

Dr. Jerry Falwell and Liberty University

It was a great honor to have been invited by Dr. Jerry Falwell to give the commencement address at Liberty University last weekend.

Like all his friends and admirers, I was shocked and deeply saddened last week by his death. I found myself facing a three-part challenge: Giving the 3,300 graduates at Liberty University a charge for their future while also bearing witness to the great work of Dr. Falwell and actually giving the message of "Rediscovering God in America" which he had personally asked me to address.

You can read my commencement address at

On a personal note, let me add that being in the robing room putting on our graduation gowns and watching Dr. Falwell's younger son Jonathan (who will be the pastor at Thomas Road Baptist Church) drape the chancellor's medallion on his older brother Jerry, Jr., (who will be the new head of Liberty University) was a moment of passing the torch and seeing new lights emerge which I will always treasure.

Undermining America's Young Men and Women in Uniform

No one should doubt how much damage the Democrats are doing to America and to our young men and women in uniform with their political maneuvering in Congress.

In Atlanta Friday night, a doctor in the National Guard who had just come home from serving in Mosul briefed me on the damage he had seen to American morale and the confusion among young soldiers as the Democrats continue to play games with the supplemental appropriations and talk about legislating defeat in the war our troops are trying every day to win.

How would you like to be risking your life on the point in Iraq knowing some politician back home was undermining everything you are trying to do?

Call your House and Senate members and tell them to quit undermining our troops in the middle of a war and get the money to the troops without any more games or delays.

(I discussed Iraq with Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd on NBC's "Meet the Press" yesterday. You can watch it here.)

The Sixth of June and FDR's National Prayer for D-Day

I hope you will join me in a new project to get as many radio stations as possible to play President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's national prayer from D-Day, June 6, 1944, on its anniversary, June 6, 2007.

This prayer is a beautiful and powerful appeal to God on behalf of young Americans who were landing in Normandy to liberate Europe from the Nazi totalitarian evil that had overwhelmed it. It was truly a crusade for freedom and civilization.

In this prayer, on nationwide radio on June 6, 1944 -- as the Greatest Generation launched its mightiest battle of the Second World War -- Roosevelt demonstrated that he knew how our faith bound us together as a country and he urged the American people to a rededication of their faith, not through a "single day of special prayer" but that "our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer."

Given the efforts of the secular radicals to drive prayer and God out of public life, I believe creating an annual tradition of playing FDR's D-Day prayer will have a powerful effect:

It will remind people that it is correct to identify evil as evil and to seek to defeat it.
It will remind people that President Roosevelt saw Word War II in religious terms as a conflict between pagan tyranny and our "Christian civilization" (as he termed it).
It will remind people that the proper goal for America when facing evil and confronting enemies is to win.
It might help liberal Democrats to learn that their favorite 20th Century President was proudly in favor of helping Americans in uniform and praying publicly.

If you have never heard the FDR D-Day prayer, listen to it online at

Call your favorite radio stations and shows and urge them to play this prayer on June 6. It will be good for all Americans to hear it, especially when we consider our own young Americans -- our sons and daughters, our neighbors -- in harm's way around the world today.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich
P.S. -- We had a great first week launching our new novel Pearl Harbor. We will be in New Hampshire, Iowa, Texas and California this week for book signings (go to for the time and place near you or where you may have friends). And don't forget: Next Friday, we will be in Hawaii with Sean Hannity and Ollie North for a Freedom Rally at the Hawaii Convention Center in Honolulu. Go to for more details. And the following week, I will be in Maui signing copies of Pearl Harbor.

P.P.S. -- If you have not visited, you should. The Solutions Day workshops are beginning to gain momentum, and we now have people in all 50 states signed up to host workshops aimed at transforming government in all 511,000 local, state and federal elected positions. We would love to have your help.

On the Radio

Winning the Future with Newt Gingrich, a new series of 90-second radio commentaries, can be heard Monday through Friday on more than 350 radio stations during The G. Gordon Liddy Show and The Michael Reagan Show. For a list of stations, click here.

Isabodywear underwear fends off cellphone radiation

Source: The Drudge Report
Isabodywear underwear fends off cellphone radiation

Posted May 20th 2007 8:30PM by Darren Murph

If you thought donning tin foil caps was excessive, Isabodywear is out to make those contraptions looks mighty mild. While the debate about just how dangerous (or not) cellphone radiation is still rages on, there's certainly a paranoid sect that will snap up anything that claims to "protect them," and this Swiss garb maker is latching onto said opportunity. The briefs are purportedly constructed with threads made of silver, which the company claims will fend off harmful cellphone radiation; moreover, in an effort to really prove just how effective these undergarments are, it suggests that phone calls originated within the confines of your new underwear simply won't connect. Reportedly, 4,000 pairs have been created so far, and for folks willing to give these a try and fill out a survey, the first 500 of you to email in and request one will seemingly have one sent out gratis. There's no word on when you can expect the Slipways to hit the market, but they should sell for CHF29.90 ($24) apiece when retailers start stocking.

Sunday, May 20, 2007

Who c-cares about Live Earth?

Source: The Drudge Report
Who c-cares about Live Earth?
May 19, 2007

JUST when it looked like every rock star on the planet was jumping aboard AL GORE's green bandwagon, there’s a backlash already underway.

THE WHO's ROGER DALTRY has blasted the big Wembley gig Gore is organising to raise awareness of global warming.

The huge concert - which features performances from the likes of MADONNA and RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS - is taking place at Wembley on July 7 and in other countries around the world.

But Roger, who played with U2 at Live Aid and Live8, reckons the whole thing is a waste of time.

Speaking exclusively to Bizarre, Roger said: "Bo***cks to that! The last thing the planet needs is a rock concert.

"I can't believe it. Let's burn even more fuel.

"We have problems with global warming, but the questions and the answers are so huge I don't know what a rock concert's ever going to do to help.

"Everybody on this planet at the moment, unless they are living in the deepest rainforest in Brazil, knows about climate change.”

The rocker, who used to sing about my g-generation, added: "My answer is to burn all the f***ing oil as quick as possible and then the politicians will have to find a solution.”

Roger's comments come hot on the heels of SIR BOB GELDOF’s equally scathing views.

Last week the Live Aid hero lashed out, saying: "Why is Gore actually organising them? To make us aware of the greenhouse effect?

"Everybody's known about that problem for years. We are all f***ing conscious of global warming."

A Live Earth spokesman said: “People are aware of global warming but millions are not doing anything about changing their lifestyles.”

But before Sir Bob thinks he has found an ally in Roger, the legendary British singer also admitted he feels badly let down by Live 8.

Ten concerts were held simultaneously in July 2005 with the goal to Make Poverty History.
Again Roger complains that unlike the original Live Aid in 1985, where the money went directly to famine relief, the follow-up 20 years later had no achievable aims.

Roger moaned: "What did we really achieve at Live 8? We got loads of platitudes and no action.
"Who were we kidding there?"

"At least with Live Aid, Bob Geldof was willing to work the trenches and they did save a lot of lives."

"We could see what we achieved at the end of it."

Roger also confirmed that he and PETE TOWNSHEND will not be performing at this summer's other big charity music event, the Concert For Diana.

He said: "It would be wrong of us to play. It should be for those two boys, the show that they want.

"They obviously want Elton John, as he holds memories for them, but it would be a joke for us to play."

"Not unless they are real Who fans, which I very much doubt."

You can see The Who very soon though, as the band are playing a number of shows and festivals in England as part of the European tour.