|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Retired Commander Says Missile Defense is Political By David Ruppe WASHINGTON — A former U.S. strategic forces commander on Monday charged that the Bush administration’s planned deployment of components of a national missile defense system this year is politically motivated and will not be capable of protecting the country (see GSN, Sept. 14). “In my view it is 95-percent political in nature,” said retired Gen. Eugene Habiger, a former commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, in charge of all Air Force and Navy strategic forces. The Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system “certainly doesn’t have any credible capability, and I cannot recall any military system being deployed in such a manner,” he said, referring to the system that U.S. President George W. Bush in December 2002 ordered deployed this year. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last year set the deployment date for Oct. 1, although he recently indicated that the date is flexible and that the system could be taken back off alert for development and testing (see GSN, Aug. 19). He and other officials have said the administration’s approach is to initially deploy a “limited” capability that would be improved in future years with better technologies and additional systems as they are developed. “We’re developing, testing and beginning to deploy limited defenses against ballistic missiles to deter rogue states from attempting to think that they can blackmail America or our friends and allies,” Rumsfeld said at an event last week. In an e-mailed statement, Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin denied any political motivation in the timing of the planned deployment. “The Missile Defense System has undergone extensive testing, and will continue to do so for many years in order to improve and enhance our defensive capabilities against a ballistic missile attack,” she said. “Politics do not enter into the picture. The safety of our country and its citizens transcends politics.” Suitability Debate Habiger, who is now a distinguished fellow at the University of Georgia’s Center for International Trade and Security, said his comments were not politically motivated, but made rather “because I think we’re making a mistake in terms of the allocation of resources.” “It appears our mind-set is still Cold War driven … that we are potentially under a kind of Cold War kind of threat,” he said. “In my view, the threat is going to be asymmetrical in nature, not force on force against the United States.” “I think we’re going down a very, very dangerous path when the politicians of the United States of America are dictating what military weapons systems are going to be deployed,” he said, speaking at an event sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. President George W. Bush in a campaign speech last month said the system is needed to address future threats (see GSN, Aug. 20). “I think those who oppose this ballistic missile system really don’t understand the threats of the 21st century. They’re living in the past. We’re living in the future,” he said. In an earlier statement last month, Bush said the deployed “components” of the system would fulfill a 2000 campaign pledge to field an “effective” national missile defense system “at the earliest possible date” (see GSN, Aug. 5). Capability and Need Questioned Also speaking at the event Monday, Philip Coyle, the Pentagon’s former top weapons testing official, said that Bush would not fulfill his pledge because the system will lack key components, such as an advanced radar for tracking and targeting, and has not been demonstrated effective against a real threat. Bush “hasn’t been able to deliver on that promise, because the Missile Defense Agency hasn’t been able to deliver a system that works,” said Coyle, who is now a senior adviser with the Center for Defense Information. Habiger said that what is planned for deployment this year, including up to 10 interceptor missiles, has not been proven capable under realistic conditions. “We will be putting a system on alert that has not been flight-tested in nearly two years and never with the actual interceptor that is being put in the ground up at Fort Greely, Alaska,” he said. He argued further that no threat today justifies the deployment and that “it’s very doubtful that that threat will evolve in the future.” North Korea — the threat which U.S. officials have previously said is driving the missile-defense deployment — would need to master nuclear weapons miniaturization technology to be able to strike the U.S. mainland using the Taepodong 2 missile the communist nation is suspected to be developing, and would have great difficulty doing so, Habiger said. “The warhead would have to be no heavier than 300 kilograms … To miniaturize something that is going to go into the nose cone of an ICBM and is going to experience [G-forces, vibration, temperature extremes] takes a lot of technology, takes a lot of work and a lot of time,” he said. “We have a threat that’s based upon a system that is not been flight-tested and has some severe challenges,” he said of the North Korean missile system.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
