Center Senior Science Fellow Phil Coyle published an op-ed in the National Interest on July 26 on the scientific and technical basis of US missile defense programs, specifically the ground based midcourse defense (GMD) system (i.e. national missile defense) and the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA). Here’s how he begins:
Two recent scientific assessments of U.S. missile-defense efforts show that these programs are chasing scientific dead ends, unworkable concepts and a flawed overall architecture.
And here’s how he ends:
The administration and Congress need to take a deep breath and reexamine where the country is going with missile defense, applying the best science along the way. In the meantime, buying more flawed hardware won’t help.
Read the whole piece here.