U.S. to Cloak Missile Defense Tests in Secrecy

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon ( news - web sites) will conduct a very aggressive U.S. missile defense testing plan over the next two years but will cloak the results in secrecy to foil potential attackers, the head of the program said on Tuesday.

The military will inform Congress on progress in the controversial $48 billion-plus development program while withholding details from the public in areas such as U.S. ability to overcome decoys used in any missile attack, Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish told reporters.

"We will not give our adversaries a free ride as we develop the system," said Kadish, head of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, confirming reports that the development program will become increasingly classified.

"That doesn't mean that those people who need to know what we have ... won't have access to it. They will," he said. "We have a very important responsibility to make sure that the Congress and our elected representatives and the administration know what the system can actually do."

Critics of the U.S. program have charged that the administration is pressing ahead too rapidly on President Bush ( news - web sites)'s plan to develop missile defenses for America and its allies.

Those critics warn that enemy decoys such as fake warheads launched with real nuclear or other warheads toward a target could easily foil U.S. attempts to destroy the real warheads in flight.

The United States withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with Russia earlier this month in order to push more aggressive development of a missile defense system prohibited by that ABM treaty.

"We intend a very aggressive program over the next six months to two years," said Kadish of attempts to develop a layered and limited system of protection against potential missile attack from what the United States calls "rogue nations" such as North Korea ( news - web sites), Iran and Iraq.

But the general cautioned against predictions from some U.S. defense officials that the Pentagon might deploy as early as 2004 initial, warship-based weapons to shoot down intercontinental missiles in flight.

"We are going to work as hard as we can to deploy our systems as soon as possible. I can't tell you the exact date right now, but we are heading somewhere in the mid-decade time frame -- in the four- to six- to eight-year time frame," he said.

"We walk before we run. You don't try to make a Cadillac when you basically have the knowledge for a Model-T (Ford)."

Kadish on Tuesday reiterated his announcement last week that the United States will push to enlist other countries in the controversial Bush plan to build a multibillion-dollar, multi-layered shield against ballistic missiles.

Other defense officials told Reuters earlier on Tuesday that the Pentagon was planning to form a new command to include the U.S. missile attack warning network and the military force that can hit suspected nuclear, chemical and biological arms sites.

Combining the Space Command and its warning satellites with the Strategic Command of offensive bombers and missiles would fit into Bush's planned doctrine allowing pre-emptive strikes against states and groups seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction, officials told Reuters.

Kadish told reporters it was not clear whether his missile defense agency would fall under the yet-unnamed command. The military has nearly a dozen such commands around the world, covering areas and concerns from Europe to the Middle East and homeland defense.

The New York Times first reported the merger ( news - web sites) plan on Tuesday, saying that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently briefed Bush on the proposal.

The new command is likely to be headed by Adm. James Ellis, the current head of Strategic Command, according to one senior official. "StratCom" is based at Offutt Air Force Base near Omaha, Nebraska.

The Strategic Command oversees the U.S. arsenal of nuclear missiles, which can be fired from submarines, long-range bombers or underground silos.

The Space Command in Colorado Springs, Colorado, headed by Air Force Gen. Ralph Eberhart, is responsible for overseeing dozens of satellites and ground sensors that warn the military of missile launchings around the globe.

This was good for a giggle.....

conduct a very aggressive U.S. missile defense testing plan over the next two years but will cloak the results in secrecy to foil potential attackers, the head of the program said on Tuesday.

The military will inform Congress on progress in the controversial $48 billion-plus development program while withholding details from the public in areas such as U.S. ability to overcome decoys used in any missile attack, Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish told reporters

I bet Leaky Leahy is frothing at the bit right now.

Of course he is not the only leak - too bad they chose to do this.

LVM

I can understand secrecy to a large degree, but this is getting way to much for me. Everything is vecoming a secret in DC. Yep, lets just wrap the flag around it and call it secret. There has to be accountability and informing Congress and secrecy is a contradiction in terms. I also hope that the "U.S. missile attack warning network" is not going to look anything like what Ridge proposed.

Why do you have a problem with keeping secret the results of missile defense testing with countermeasures? Countermeasures testing is almost always classified secret. Why tell the other guy what works and what doesn't?

"Why do you have a problem with keeping secret the results of missile defense testing with countermeasures? Countermeasures testing is almost always classified secret. Why tell the other guy what works and what doesn't?"

I have no problem with the counter-measures being kept secret. As long as that is what is being kept secret. My problem is everything is being labeled a secret or classified. It's becoming hard to tell what being stamped for national security and what is being stamped for national politics.

Those critics warn that enemy decoys such as fake warheads launched with real nuclear or other warheads toward a target could easily foil U.S. attempts to destroy the real warheads in flight.

Sounds to me like a numbers game pitting our counter measure capabilities against their offensive.
But surely any defense is better than no defense.
Especially considering any nation willing to risk launching such a huge number of missiles against the U.S. could surely expect a proportional counter attack...and would likely do so without any comparable defense at all.

It is far more likely some rogue state with terrorist connections would launch a much more limited attack, which is precisely what missile defense is designed to deal with.

In these days of so many LEAKS coming out of DC, I hope these classified secrets dont go anywhere remotely near the likes of the klintons, kennedys, boxers, jeffords and of course 'leaky' Leahey.

If they did I'm sure it'd be on the the ~~Russian &~~ Chinese premier's desk by the following day.

It's becoming hard to tell what being stamped for national security and what is being stamped for national politics.

A very valid concern, but as we know, this is hardly a new problem, as many Freedom Of Information Act requests have revealed over the years.

In times like these, it's reasonable to cut the government a little slack, but it is always the duty of every U.S. citizen to keep an eye on our government. After all, in a carefully crafted system of checks and balances, the only check for the government of the United States is its citizens.

Personally, I'm less concerned about military tests than the increased intrusion on civil rights that we're seeing. I'm all for reasonable security measures, but NOT for unconstitutional ones.

Imal

That means we've already got some ready and we're bringing it out of the black budget slowly ... like the SR-71, F-117, and B-2's were handled.

"Personally, I'm less concerned about military tests than the increased intrusion on civil rights that we're seeing. I'm all for reasonable security measures, but NOT for unconstitutional ones."

On target!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.