|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Plans: U.S. Official Elaborates on Assessment of 2004 Missile Defenses By David Ruppe Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Edward “Pete” Aldridge defended the estimate he made at earlier this week, but said it reflected his personal judgment, as opposed to an official Defense Department assessment. The clarification was made as the Bush administration appeals to Congress for extra funding to field elements of the system, which is slated to install six missile interceptors in Alaska and four in California by the end of fiscal 2004 and an additional 10 interceptors in fiscal 2005. The administration’s goal is to provide an initial capability to defend the United States from a potential North Korean missile attack. Congressional critics have argued the administration is overestimating the potential effectiveness of the system, noting official statements that key system components are not scheduled to be built by that time, nor will the entire system have been tested under realistic conditions. Professional Judgment At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Tuesday Aldridge was asked by one senator how successful the “10 land-based missiles proposed for the end of fiscal year 2004” would be against a North Korean missile launched by October 2004, according to a transcript. “As of today the projected effectiveness would be in the 90 percent range,” he replied, explaining that such success might be achieved by launching multiple interceptors at individual target missiles. His estimate was met with skepticism from Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), a prominent missile defense program critic who said he had seen a different estimate in a classified briefing. “I think you’ll want to correct the record after you read the classified numbers,” Levin said. Appearing before the House Armed Services Committee yesterday, Aldridge said the estimate was a product of his professional judgment. He was prompted to do so by Representative Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), a prominent missile defense advocate. Was the 90 percent estimate “in fact your belief based on 42 years of experience? And would you elaborate on that a little further, because we had some doubters on that in the Senate and I wanted you to have a chance to expand upon your statement as a professional in this area,” Weldon said. Citing his experience dating to the Johnson administration, Aldridge said, “I had been asked to comment on a particular scenario of which North Korea would launch a missile, a single missile into San Francisco. And, given the fact that we would have a deployment system in the 2004-2005 timeframe with 20 interceptor missiles, what would I advise the president as to how effective that missile defense would have been against that single attack.” “Based upon my judgment, I would say given the fact that we could launch one, or two, or three missiles against that target, the effectiveness would be in the 90 percent range.” Cited Evidence of Success “There’s no doubt in your mind that that capability is now at hand if we follow through on our program as outlined by you today?” Weldon asked. “I will continue to stand by that. I’ve seen the test results. If you look at some of the movies [Missile Defense Agency Director] Gen. [Ronald] Kadish has shown of some of the intercepts, you would have a very high confidence that the hit-to-kill technology works,” he said. Kadish, who also testified at both hearings, has cited the system’s test record of four successful intercepts out of five recent attempts as evidence the system is ready to defend the United States against the possibility of a North Korean threat. “Our testing and analysis give us confidence that hit-to-kill technology works and that we can take the initial steps we are proposing to … introduce a modest defensive capability to defeat a limited long-range threat,” he said. Critics note the total testing intercept record is five successes in eight attempts (see GSN, Dec. 11, 2002), and that Kadish himself has said those tests were highly scripted and that operationally realistic testing will not begin by the time those missiles are fielded (see GSN, Jan. 7). Kadish yesterday also issued a clarification of sorts, saying the most recent intercept test, in December, “was not a failure of new missile defense technology, but a failure of our quality control processes” (see GSN, March 4). Pentagon officials said the failure resulted when the intercepting vehicle failed to separate from its rocket booster stage. A Hurry to Field Early in his presidency, George W. Bush declared a goal of fielding a system by October 2004. The administration has said that North Korea is developing a missile designed to reach the United States and may have developed nuclear weapons. The Missile Defense Agency says it is requesting $750 million in addition to its $8 billion budget to address that goal by building and fielding through 2005 a total of 15 ground-based interceptors (five are already funded), plus sea-based interceptors for short- and medium-range threats, according to Kadish. According to usual Pentagon practice, however, weapons systems are not supposed to be deployed until they have been proven through realistic operational testing. While Bush and Kadish announced the initial fielding in December, (see GSN, Dec. 17, 2002), officials have said such a fielding would not technically be a deployment but rather would be part of a testing infrastructure. That distinction would allow the Pentagon to skip the usual operational testing. Kadish said it would be better to have an unperfected capability in the ground than none at all. “We have to strike a balance between our desire for perfection in the missile defenses we deploy and our desire to have as soon as possible a defensive capability where none exists today,” he said. Kadish said the military would conduct operational testing even as the system was being developed. “Given recent events in the international security environment, the president’s decision reflects an urgent need to make that test bed as operational as we possibly can,” he said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
