In July, the Washington Examiner ran an item that said the U.S. has a system in place that “is poised to shoot down anything launched from [tag]North Korea[/tag] that threatens the American homeland or the critical interests of our regional allies like Japan and Australia.” This development, the piece argues, has led long-time skeptics to become “noticeably absent,” as if our defenses have finally reached a point that proves the merit behind the missile-defense idea.
Around the same time, I saw one far-right blog argue that the Pentagon’s decision to turn on the [tag]missile defense[/tag] system is proof that “liberals were on the wrong side of history.” The post went on to say, “If not for Ronald Reagan, and his vision and leadership, we would now be at the mercy of that lunatic in North Korea.”
As it turns out, even Donald [tag]Rumsfeld[/tag] isn’t prepared to endorse such an idea.
After his first look inside the nerve center of the U.S. missile defense system, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Sunday sounded a note of caution about expectations that interceptors poised in underground silos here would work in the event of a missile attack by North Korea. […]
Asked at a news conference later whether he believed the missile shield was ready for use against a North Korean missile like the one test-fired unsuccessfully on July 4, Rumsfeld said he would not be fully persuaded until the multibillion dollar defense system has undergone more complete and realistic testing.
Suggesting that he’d like to see a “full end-to-end” demonstration, Rumsfeld added, “That just hasn’t happened.”
I mention this not just to refute misplaced conservative boasts from earlier this summer, but also to provide a context for this week’s major test of the U.S. missile defense system, scheduled for Thursday, which will be the fullest assessment since embarrassing failures grounded the program 18 months ago.
Although a target missile will be fired from Kodiak Island, Alaska, and an interceptor rocket topped with a “kill vehicle” will launch from California’s Vandenberg Air Force Base, military and industry officials say the goal isn’t to actually shoot down the missile.
“We are not going to try to hit the target,” said Scott Fancher, head of Boeing Co.’s ground-based missile defense program. “It is not a primary or secondary test objective to hit the target.”
Maybe the test will work, maybe it won’t; we’ll know more later this week. But I think it’s worth noting that after all of these years of development, and all the billions of dollars in investment, we’re about to conduct a test to see if the system is simply capable of spotting the target.
It’s a reminder of just how little this program has actually produced.
* The Pentagon’s Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system hasn’t successfully intercepted a missile since October of 2002…. And the last two times it tried to hit an oncoming missile, the interceptor didn’t even leave the ground. Things have gotten so bad that the Missile Defense Agency’s independent review team concluded last year that more tests may only undermine the GMD’s value as a deterrent.”
* A recent Pentagon Inspector General report found that security vulnerabilities are so serious “that the agency and its contractor, Boeing, may not be able to prevent misuse of the system.”
* “A little-noticed study by the Government Accountability Office issued in March found that program officials were so concerned with potential flaws in the first nine interceptors now in operation that they considered taking them out of their silos and returning them to their manufacturer for ‘disassembly and remanufacture.'”
Just to be clear, I’d be thrilled if we had an effective defense system that could shoot down threatening missiles. But we don’t, and the one we’re working on may never offer a realistic defense. That doesn’t mean critics of the system are “on the wrong side of history”; it just means we’re the ones paying attention to whether the darn thing actually works.