"Thomas P. Christie, director of the Pentagon's office of Operational Test and Evaluation, said a shortage of testing data would likely make it difficult for him to assess the system's effectiveness ahead of any deployment this year," the Washington Post noted earlier this year. "He expressed concern about the small number and relatively simple nature of flight tests, noting they have used the same course each time and have relied on surrogates and prototypes for key elements still under development."
Slate's Fred Kaplan translates:
In the past six years of flight tests, here is what the Pentagon's missile-defense agency has demonstrated: A missile can hit another missile in mid-air as long as a) the operators know exactly where the target missile has come from and where it's going; b) the target missile is flying at a slower-than-normal speed; c) it's transmitting a special beam that exaggerates its radar signature, thus making it easier to track; d) only one target missile has been launched; and e) the "attack" happens in daylight.
Phillip Coyle, Christie's predecessor, put it more succinctly: the system is "simply not up to the job," he said.
Now, some might argue that merely having some deterrent to, say, North Korean missiles -- no matter how half-assed -- is better than nothing. Which would be true. If Pyongyang was worried at all that the thing might work. But if the Pentagon's own testing chiefs aren't convinced, what are the chances that the North Koreans are?
The situation isn't likely to change any time soon. The next stages of the Pentagon's missile defense plan call for building defenses that can catch enemy rockets before they take off. But in a study last year, the American Physical Society said that couldn't be done with current or near-term American anti-missile technology.
So it's no surprise that when the Defense Department tried to show off its anti-missile training program to reporters earlier this year, the wargame had to be rigged in order for the good guys to win.
Comments
view comments in forum
You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.
Of course, since the major threat to the US and indeed North America is not from the missles of "rogue states" but from a guy with a grudge (be they an Islamist, a Neo-Nazi skin head, or a destitute South American Commie) and a suitcase-nuke. Or weaponized Antrax\Smallpox\Diptheria. Or a Ryder rent-a-truck and some legal fertilizer and diesel fuel. No multi-billion dollar missle defense shield will save the US from any of that, and the effects will be just as devastating (or even more so if weaponized botulism gets a good tail wind).
Hey, here's a nutty idea. Instead of spending BILLIONS on something that won't work or won't protect the US, why not spend that money on humanitarian efforts so that people don't want to blow up your buildings, launch missle at you or set off a biological catastrophe in your country in the first place. You get more flies with suger than vinegar, I've heard it said.
Naw, never mind, just keep treating other countries like your own personal resource playgrounds and keep killing and bombing anyone that dares look at the world in a differnt way than you or stand up for themselves. After all its worked really well so far....
Mike
"Never by hate has hate been appeased, only by love" - the Buddha.
Happy, well fed, fairly treated people don't blow things up, shoot people or become suicide bombers. Period.
As for your assertion that one of the bombers had a 'mercedes' in his garage, I'd like you to present evidence rather that GWB one-off sound bites.
Try again. Like I said, whether they think that or not, bombing people will only drive converts to Al Queda, not keep them away. The world is more dangerous since Iraq, not safer...
Building walls instead of communication has never worked either.
Mike