Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Critics Say Missile Defense System Unworkable
Reuters via NYTimes.com ^ | 12/17/2002

Posted on 12/17/2002 4:07:54 PM PST by GeneD

Filed at 6:54 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The missile defense system President Bush ordered to be deployed will not work and is a waste of money, critics said on Tuesday while the Pentagon acknowledged the system initially will provide only modest protection.

``I have no great confidence that it's going to work under real-world conditions,'' said Lawrence Korb, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations think tank who served as assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan.

Bush directed the Defense Department to begin deploying a national missile defense system with land- and sea-based interceptor rockets to be up and working in 2004.

The system is intended to protect the United States against long-range enemy missiles. But there have been three failures in the eight major tests involving attempts to shoot down a long-range dummy warhead in space over the Pacific Ocean, including the most recent test on Dec. 11.

Critics said the program is too costly -- tens of billions of dollars already and potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in the long run -- and has not proven that it can work as advertised. They also expressed worry that the deployment might prompt nations such as North Korea and China to step up missile-building efforts.

John Isaacs, president of Council for a Livable World, an organization opposed to the deployment, said Bush was rushing ahead with a system that is ``deaf, dumb and blind.''

``A missile defense system that protects Americans consistently and reliably is years, if not decades, away,'' he said in a statement. ``The planned deployment lacks a needed radar system to make it see, operational tests to determine if it works and satellite systems to provide adequate sensors.''

'IT'S IMPORTANT TO START'

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the administration was not rushing into anything.

``The reason I think it's important to start is because you have to put something in place and get knowledge about it and have experience with it, and then add to it over time. I mean, there isn't a single weapons systems we have that hasn't gotten better successively over a period of time that I can think of,'' Rumsfeld said during a Pentagon briefing.

Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy J.D. Crouch said the system will have ``very modest'' capability when first deployed, but would be ``very useful.''

Rumsfeld added: ``To the extent we have a capability, it will have a deterrent effect. ... To the extent it has a limited capability, it will have a deterrent effect only to that limit.''

Philip Coyle, who as assistant secretary of defense helped evaluate the program during the Clinton administration, said the tests of the system currently planned are not sufficient to determine whether it will work. ``Based on the test results so far, it isn't ready now,'' he said in an interview.

Korb told Reuters he believed Bush decided to deploy in 2004, the final year of his term in office, in order to have a program in place to ensure its long-term use.

``I think it's mostly a political decision because Bush can't be guaranteed a second term, and by picking that particular date what he does is he locks in his successor,'' Korb added.

Some congressional Democrats were critical.

Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, outgoing chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Bush's decision ``violates common sense by determining to deploy systems before they have been tested and shown to work.''

U.S. Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts added, ``It wastes taxpayer dollars and lulls us into a false sense of security.''

``It's all politics and not much defense,'' said Rep. Thomas Allen, a Maine Democrat who noted the deployment target was the fall of 2004, when Bush is expected to seek re-election.

Rumsfeld was asked if the decision was driven by politics.

``It is driven by acute rationality,'' Rumsfeld said. ``There isn't anything we're doing in this department that it would be accurate to suggest is rooted in politics.''


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: carllevin; china; defensedepartment; donaldrumsfeld; edwardmarkey; georgewbush; jdcrouch; johnisaacs; lawrencekorb; missiledefense; northkorea; philipcoyle; sdi; thomasallen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 last
To: GeneD
I'm going to get flamed for this, but I have very little confidence that this missile defense system Bush wants to build will be an effective one. It has done okay thus far in tests, but that is just that - tests. I have read the material from that professor from MIT, and I'm inclined to believe his writings. IMHO, there are more cost-effective ways to stop Americans from being obliterated by warheads.
61 posted on 12/18/2002 6:40:54 AM PST by Tony Niar Brain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: belmont_mark; HalfIrish; NMC EXP; OKCSubmariner; Travis McGee; t-shirt; DoughtyOne; SLB; ...
Well, in truth this is a very modest system indeed, and with the scheduled unilateral nuclear disarmament, is only a drop in the bucket. But still, I just love to see Upper West Side "MAD hatters" squirm...

Very modest indeed, but at least a step in the right direction. We haven't had a missile defense system deployed in nearly three decades. Russia has had theirs for four decades and it is now 8500 ABMs strong enough to shoot down our entire retaliatory strike in the event of a Russian nuclear first strike today. Of course, if Bush makes good on his pledge to disarm the country of 75% of its strategic nuclear deterrent, we will be entirely at the mercy of our Sino-Russian enemies and our superpower status will be a matter of historical reference.

For those interested in affecting a partial reverse of this dangerous situation, please see the following amendment to the Moscow Treaty and urge your Senator to sponsor it or one like it.

Proposed Amendment to the Treaty of Moscow
62 posted on 12/18/2002 7:00:13 AM PST by rightwing2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: fogarty

63 posted on 12/18/2002 4:01:30 PM PST by Paul Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Southack; All
LOL! I was reading the same thing in the Boston Globe(Ick.) today during lunch and brought this point up.

A liberal claimed it was impossible to perfect so I asked him if he would support it if it DID work. Of course he would not so I think that shows you what bias they have towards Missle Defense.

RLK brings up a very good point. Most of the detractors say that swarms of nukes would overwhelm the system, proving it useless. I dont see SWARMS of missles coming, just a few.

It seems to me like they are reading from thier playbook of appeasement to the USSR. That was the only country that could throw swarms of missles at us.

Amazingly enough, the UK is doing research into this area but they state that it is to stop foreign objects such as asteroids... are they rogue? :D

The Dems claim that the GOP is playing politics with the missle defense system but do they really think that we WANT a useless system!?!?!?

It's easy to see WHO is playing politics on this one, and the fact that they would play politics on this issue speaks volumes to me. Lets hope the rest of the country can see it.

64 posted on 12/18/2002 4:12:02 PM PST by Arioch7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Southack; Alamo-Girl
Bump. The NYT is not the only miscreant, of course. The MRC did a nice study of Brian Williams, MSNBC's Sad Sack, click here to see what passes for unbiassed coverage nowadays...
65 posted on 12/18/2002 4:16:15 PM PST by Paul Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rightwing2
Bump. Good resolution!
66 posted on 12/18/2002 4:19:43 PM PST by Paul Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
These "critics" fall into one of two groups: either they are the domestic touchy-feely types who fear for their funding for gay alcoholic chickens hooked on drugs, or the out and out agents of foreign powers who are just doing their jobs.

Of course according to them lots of things may not work in real life: airplanes, radar, kites, VCRs, toilets, microwave ovens... you get the drift.

67 posted on 12/18/2002 4:26:42 PM PST by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Thanks for the heads up!
68 posted on 12/21/2002 11:51:07 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson