David, why did you guys pull out of some deal that is hopelessly useless, very expensive, 'unstoppable', and so very entertaining :0)
stratfor.com
U.S. Missile System: Beleaguered and Unstoppable
Mar 10, 2005
Summary
The U.S. National Missile Defense (NMD) program, meant to defend the United States from ballistic missile attack, has been problem-plagued since its inception in 1999. On Feb. 24 it suffered another setback when Canada said it would not participate in the program. The announcement came 10 days after an interceptor missile failed to launch during a test -- the second failure in a row for the program. While such setbacks would lead to the cancellation of most any other defense program, NMD research and development will continue despite criticism, enormous cost and technical problems.
Analysis
The Canadian withdrawal from the U.S. National Missile Defense (NMD) program Feb. 24 dealt another blow to the beleaguered NMD. The announcement by Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin came 10 days after the failure of a missile test -- the second in a row -- when technical problems with ground equipment caused the interceptor launch to be aborted. In the previous missile test, in December 2002, the interceptor failed to separate from its booster on its way to the target vehicle. While these technical and political setbacks would spell doom for many other defense programs, the NMD is in no serious trouble.
The Canadian contribution to the NMD program was primarily political and of negligible technical or economic value. Officially, Canada was not even a participant in the program. No memorandum of understanding between the United States and Canada was ever signed regarding the program, and Ottawa contributed no money for NMD research and development. If anything, had Canada signed on to the program, it would have received money from the United States since Canadian companies gained contracts to assist in the development of the system. Canada also would have benefited by having access to technology developed during the program.
In any case, the lack of Canadian participation in NMD will have no significant effect on security relations between the two countries. Both Washington and Ottawa stress that Canada's involvement in the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), a joint U.S.-Canadian command center responsible for defending the air over North America, will not change. Warning radars and communications links used by NORAD also will serve an operational NMD system.
The Canadian withdrawal was actually motivated by other problems between Washington and Ottawa, mainly disagreements over the North American Free Trade Agreement and other cross-border economic matters.
Protecting Americans from weapons of mass destruction, whether deployed by terrorists or by missiles launched from "rogue" states, is central to the Bush administration's ideology. In its current form, the NMD system is designed to defend against a relatively small number of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) -- which a country such as North Korea or Iran might launch -- rather than against a massive ICBM attack launched by Russia.
The NMD program is very important to the Bush administration. Having a defense against foreign missiles was a campaign promise in both the 2000 and 2004 elections. In addition, the Bush administration said in 2002 that a "modest" capability would exist in late 2004 or early 2005. This milestone was met in November 2004, when the sixth interceptor missile was emplaced in its launcher at Fort Greely, Alaska. The missiles in Alaska are augmented by two more interceptors based at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
In addition to being very expensive (the estimated price tag in 2002 for full system development was $60 billion to $120 billion), the NMD program is also behind schedule. The original plan called for deploying 100 interceptor missiles in 2005, but recent test failures make that extremely unlikely. Since 1999, the Pentagon has conducted 10 tests of the missile defense system, five of which have resulted in hits. Of these, only the last two failed tests used the actual interceptor missile designed for the system instead of modified ICBMs to carry the "kill vehicle" into space.
The interceptors emplaced at Fort Greely and Vandenberg Air Force Base are stopgap measures intended to field a system quickly in order to meet milestones, leaving the small problems to be ironed out later. Fielding a system before it has been thoroughly tested attains the short-term goal of a "capability" rather than a "perfected capability," but it does get the system fielded, where the problems can be addressed as experience is gained.
NMD critics claim that the program is too expensive, not technically viable and meant for a nonexistent threat. Proponents say it is the only way to defend against ICBMs launched from rogue states. Ideally, the NMD would destroy enemy missiles while in the boost phase shortly after launch. Although they have been successful against shorter-ranged missiles, the Patriot and Aegis anti-missile systems are not suitable for defending against ICBMs in the boost phase.
NMD research and development has other benefits not directly related to missile defense; technology emerging from the program will no doubt have other defense and commercial applications. Continued development of NMD also will enhance current theater (rather than strategic) missile defense systems -- something many countries are becoming increasingly interested in. By keeping the NMD program going, the United States can ensure it maintains its technological advantage in terms of missile defense.
The political cost of canceling the program is also potentially high. With billions spent so far and billions more budgeted, the program will employ thousands of workers in key defense industries, and the senators and representatives who serve these constituencies have a vested interest in keeping the program going. And if NMD were canceled and a rogue state somehow managed to launch a missile at the United States, the administration on watch would hear no end of it.
As it exists, NMD is not intended to reflect the final, complete system. The Bush administration has budgeted an additional $50 billion for NMD between 2005 and 2009. Because of the program's importance to the administration's security policy, it is extremely unlikely that NMD will be sacrificed in the next four years.
Copyright 2005 Strategic Forecasting Inc. All rights reserved. |
