Missile Defense: Wishing Won't Make it So
Jun 8, 2001
Press Release: June 8, 2001
Contact: John Isaacs - 202.543.4100 x. 131 or Chris Madison - 202.546.0795 x. 135
The Bush Administration’s rush to deploy a scaled down missile defense system by 2004 is nothing more than a “foot in the door” for Boeing and disastrous for U.S. security, the Council for a Livable World Center for Arms Control said today.
“The Bush plan is the worst of all possible worlds. It means building something before we know if it will work; spending huge amounts of money we don’t have; breaking the ABM treaty when our allies are strongly opposed to such action; and putting U.S. security at risk, all to appease the Republican right wing. It’s outrageous. It’s like the Pentagon is living in an Alice-in-Wonderland reality,” said John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World.
The Bush plans for deploying five missile interceptors in Alaska by 2004, leaked on the eve of the President’s first trip to meet with NATO partners and with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, appears to be an effort to bully our NATO allies, who do not see the need for the U.S. to deploy an anti-missile system, into concluding they have no chance of derailing the Administration’s efforts.
“Simply using words like ‘inescapable’ and ‘inevitable’ to describe these half-baked plans won’t make them come true,” said Chris Madison, who directs the Center for Arms Control’s National Missile Defense Project. “The fact is, there is no consensus in the Senate, no consensus in the country and no consensus among our allies that this is the best way to proceed.”
The Center for Arms Control noted that there were several major obstacles to the Administration’s “hurry-up” missile defense. To deploy by 2004, they would have to use existing, but inadequate, radar systems, because there is not enough time to build sophisticated new radar systems. In addition, the Pentagon would have to significantly increase testing of the system.
However, if a test fails, and many anti-missile intercept tests do, several months are required to investigate the failure before the next test is conducted. When the next intercept test of this system is conducted, it will have been over a year since the last one. There simply is not enough time to do all the tests required before 2004.
Moreover, this ‘build now, ask questions later’ approach probably has a more cynical motivation. Everyone knows that once a weapons program enters its procurement phase, Congress is loath to stop funding it, even for substantial upgrades later on.
“This is a ‘foot in the door’ approach to missile defense,” Isaacs said. “By getting some elements in place quickly, they hope to grease the wheels for more money in future years.”
RSS Feed