|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S Plans I: Scientists Agree With Pace of Development An independent panel of scientists overseeing the development of the U.S. missile defense program agreed with the proposed pace of the program, Defense Daily reported yesterday. “[The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] has been very open and accurate in reporting results of the [integrated flight test] series of tests,” the panel said in a report released this month (see GSN, Jan. 7). The panel refuted claims made by the Union of Concerned Scientists in November that the pace of missile defense development was too slow and that the BMDO misreported results of the integrated flight tests (see GSN, Dec. 4, 2001). Many of the problems reported by UCS are not as serious as claimed, nor do they indicate attempts to rig tests, according to panel member William Davis, former director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Advanced Technology Center. “The problems encountered are typical of those of any major test program and the degree of success thus far in demonstrating the feasibility of a hit-to-kill defense against long-range missiles has been encouraging,” Davis said. The panel rejected the group’s claim that the pace of the test program has been too slow in introducing new complex elements, such as changes in the types of objects in the target cluster. “These variations will certainly come about as the test program proceeds, but the fact that they have not yet occurred is due mainly to the fact it was felt to be essential to first demonstrate that hit-to-kill will work in a relatively benign environment,” the panel said. They added that there are plans to increase the speed of the ground-based midcourse defense program and to increase the complexity of the tests soon. Even though UCS claimed that no well-informed decision on deployment could be made until operational testing is completed in “2008 at the earliest,” the panel said a decision could be made before that date. “There are many historical precedents for deployments of weapon systems, particularly strategic systems, before initial operational testing,” the panel said. “This may not be viewed as an ideal development and test cycle, but it is conceivable that circumstances could dictate start of deployment before the ideal cycle can be completed (Kerry Gildea, Defense Daily/Council for a Livable World, Jan. 10).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
