While missile defense sounds nice, there still remain all those nasty obstacles to making an effective missile defense reality. Also, other factors should be considered in the decision for missile defense: cost and political reaction. Put simply, the price tag may be too much for something flawed. Furthermore, how will other countries react to our attempts at national missile defense? For example, China and Russia may become closer allies and/or take offensive actions to counter our plans.
The first issue with effective missile defense is the current and even projected kill rates. According to the August 1999 issue of Scientific American: "With less than a year until officials decide whether the national defense system is ready, only three of the first 17 intercept test have hit their targets." Furthermore, with previous missile defense projects, the systems even under optimal conditions could only knock out 90 percent of the targets. However impressive 9 out of 10 may sound, it only takes one warhead to destroy a city.
Failure to destroy the warheads lies in numerous cheap countermeasures. Scientific American says: "Any country capable of producing or obtaining both ICBMs and weapons of mass destruction would be able to produce or obtain effective countermeasures." ICBMs are Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles; they are the missiles powerful enough to land in a warhead in Iowa from Moscow, for example. Weapons of mass destruction include nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. If any country can make the bomb and the missile, then they can also make the countermeasures without any trouble.
There are four general countermeasure schemes: overwhelm the defense, impede identification by the defense, delay detection by the defense, and avoiding the interception by the defense. To complicate matters even more, each scheme has multiple options to achieve the countermeasure goal.
I will only cover one from each category; for those interested in knowing more about this topic read the Scientific American August 99 issue. I have studied missile defense for nearly ten years now and this is the best overall article to date. Overwhelm the defense could be achieved by placing multiple warheads on each missile. Placing the warhead in one of many metal-coated spheres could impede identification by the defense; jamming the radar systems would certainly delay detection by the defense. Placing a large object in front of the warhead could keep the warhead from being intercepted by the defense.
Another point to consider is the actual warhead itself. The defense system is set up to take out nuclear warheads; however, not all warheads are nuclear. Chemical and biological warheads are cheaper, easier means of causing mass destruction. If the defense system actually took out a warhead with either of these agents, then the system most likely have just assisted the warhead in spreading the agents all over the city. As bad as it sounds, a chemical or biological warhead is best left to land and take out a small portion of the city. If the defense strikes the warhead over the city, then the warhead can infect the whole city in a matter of minutes. Given the costs involved in chemical and biological weapons, many rouge nations would strike with these weapons, not nuclear warheads.
Also there is the need to consider the reaction to this plan by other countries. As long as Russia, China, and other countries feel no immediate threat, they have no reason to increase their missile industry. Since all countries are vulnerable to a degree, there is a mild sense of security. This statement stems from the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) theory. Both the US and Russia can still destroy the world over and over again. So long as no one has any reason to increase an arms race that would clearly lead to our mutual destruction, we should be safe from nuclear weapons. However, if the Russians feel that defense system would actually work, then they have a need to either develop more and better missiles or take us out now. Reagan took that big risk because the Soviet authorities believed him. Yet, they obviously did not launch nuclear warheads at us. However, we never released a date of operation, either. Had we done that, we would have given the Soviets the last day to successfully attack us. Truthfully, Reagan somehow successfully used this concept to our political advantage, nothing more.
The last thing to ponder about the defense system is the overall cost. Given all the drawbacks, would any price be worth it? Yet, the Pentagon in January 1999 claimed they would add $6.6 Billion yearly towards building a national missile defense system. Some of the smallest estimates appraise the defense system at $10 Billion; more fearful appraisals are triple digit Billion.
So, for the all the countermeasure, political, and economic factors the national missile defense is a waste of time and money. George W. Bush should know better than to throw away the nation's resources on such a useless gesture to his father.
Back to Voltair is Dead, Jim
Back to Articles
Back to Homepage
