|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Plans: Pentagon Explains New Secrecy Measures By Bryan Bender Pete Aldridge, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, and Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, director of the Missile Defense Agency, said the increasing complexity of the testing program for the national missile defense system requires that information about both test targets and decoys be restricted. The first element of U.S. missile defense programs to have the new restrictions is the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, the most advanced system against ICBMs that the United States has in development. The next GMD test is scheduled for August. “These precautions reflect the commonsense evolution of any national defense program making rapid progress in time of war,” Aldridge wrote in today’s USA Today. “On June 14, our obligations under the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty ended, and our testing program can now proceed. What could be a more appropriate time to tighten security? Doing so is sensible, not sinister” (see GSN, June 14). The Bush administration is launching a counteroffensive against charges from interest groups and former Pentagon officials that tighter security precautions are unnecessary at this time due to the relative immaturity of the program and apparent lack of realistic test conditions. They worry the new restrictions might help the Pentagon hide test failures. Philip Coyle, former Pentagon director of operational test and evaluation, said earlier this month that “this program is not at the point where the types of decoys used have even begun to be representative of the likely enemy countermeasures against missile defense” (see GSN, June 11). He contended in a Washington Post commentary that to date only round balloons have been used to simulate possible enemy efforts to confuse the missile interceptor, but they do not look like enemy missiles. Moreover, he wrote, even the targets themselves do not adequately simulate enemy warheads. “Thus, the current test program is not giving away any secrets; nor is there any potential of that for years to come,” according to Coyle. Kadish, speaking to reporters yesterday at the Pentagon, said the types and numbers of countermeasures to be used in upcoming tests will increase dramatically, requiring the agency to be tighter-lipped about test parameters. “We’re at the point in our testing where we are going to aggressively pursue what we can do against countermeasures,” he said. “There is no responsible individual that will make that type of information available to our adversaries so they can defeat our system. In my view, this is the proper time to start classifying those details.” Still, critics assert that the new restrictions could stifle public debate about whether the $48 billion research and development program system is sufficiently advanced and effective to invest additional billions of dollars to deploy it as early as 2004. But Aldridge and Kadish said the restrictions will not apply to members of Congress, who ultimately will have to decide whether to proceed with the national missile defense system. “There is not now, and can never be, any component of this program classified beyond the reach of the security clearances of its congressional overseers,” Aldridge said. Congress Debates Funding A more immediate controversy surrounds missile defense funding for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. A Senate vote on the fiscal 2003 defense authorization bill has been held up this week due to debate over an amendment to restore $800 million in missile defense funds requested by the Bush administration but removed by the Senate Armed Services Committee. Debate on an amendment by Senator John Warner (R-Va.) to return the money to the administration’s $7.5 billion request for missile defense programs took place yesterday and continued today. The House fully funded the request in its version of the defense bill. Administration officials indicate that President George W. Bush will veto the final legislation if the funds are not restored. For further information, see: U.S. Missile Defense 2002 Budget
| ||||||||||
Back to top
