|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Should Broaden Missile Defense R&D Efforts, Pentagon Adviser Says By David Ruppe WASHINGTON — The United States needs to “balance” its missile defense spending by investing more in research and development of more futuristic systems such as space-based interceptors and loosening its “preoccupation” with midcourse defense, a prominent Defense Department adviser said here yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 7). Speaking at an event on Capitol Hill sponsored by the American Foreign Policy Council, Schneider said the developmental ground-based interceptor system has “good capabilities against rudimentary long-range ballistic missiles but is less capable in an environment where there are substantial countermeasures.” He said also there are no international rules to restrict nations from sharing missile defense countermeasure technologies, and so “as a consequence, you have this environment where a great deal of commerce of these nations’ technologies can be facilitated.” His comments joined an apparent debate this year between the administration and Congress over how much to continue investing in the midcourse defense system, which has been the centerpiece of the administration’s missile defense plans but has experienced testing failures and had its potential effectiveness questioned. While exact numbers are unavailable, a Pentagon budget document released this year suggests that the Missile Defense Agency plans to spend more than $3.2 billion of a requested $7.8 billion on the midcourse defense effort in fiscal 2006. Debate on FocusSchneider praised the administration for adopting a strategy of developing and fielding various types of systems for multiple layers of defense. He said, though, that the Defense Department has just “begun to evolve the investment in R&D out of the preoccupation with midcourse into the boost and ascent phase, both land-based, and sea-based, and air-based.” He added, “There are some circumstances where the most efficient way would be to engage from space.” Investment should continue in the midcourse system, he said. “I just don’t think we should invest in a midcourse system to the exclusion of other elements.” “It’s a question of balance at a specific level of resources,” he said. What is needed, he said, is to “have a balanced program so that we are building the R&D infrastructure to support an ability to respond at each of these elements, boost, ascent, midcourse and terminal, terrestrial and space, in a way that will produce the most effective system of systems.” The 40-member Defense Science Board consisting mostly of scientists and technology experts conducts studies and advises the department on military research and development strategies. Some powerful members of Congress have argued against shifting focus from the ground-based midcourse system to others, arguing that the department should continue to work on improving a system it has invested so heavily in. The Senate Appropriations Committee in a report accompanying its version of the fiscal 2006 defense appropriations bill this year said the Bush administration appeared to be abandoning its commitment to the ground-based midcourse system in favor of pursuing other approaches and charged the Missile Defense Agency with lacking focus, (see GSN, Oct. 7). As ordered by President George W. Bush, the Pentagon in December 2002 announced it would deploy by the end of 2004 Ground-based Midcourse Defense systems, including initially up to 20 interceptor missiles in Alaska and California by the end of 2005. The administration this year asked Congress to purchase an additional 20 long-range interceptor missiles for Alaska and potentially 10 more for a new interceptor site somewhere in Europe to address the prospect of shooting down long-range missiles launched from southwest Asia. The current system, however, lacks key components, has failed its last three intercept tests, and has not been declared operational as was expected. “I think that one of the consequences of having to get the initial systems deployed was a de-emphasis on R&D and I think now that is in the process of getting adjusted as the operation of the system gets moved from the Missile Defense Agency to the service operator and the Missile Defense Agency concentrates increasingly on the R&D,” he said. Schneider said Poland has expressed an interest in hosting sensors and a battery of the missile interceptors. Missile Technology ControlsSchneider also argued that the United States should seek ways to share missile defense technologies with allies despite internationally agreed limits on missile technology transfers. Many such transfers are restricted by the Missile Technology Control Regime, a group of exporting nations that agrees to common export rules. “I think that like the [Antiballistic Missile] Treaty, people will need to find a way to work around [the MTCR] so that these capabilities can still be transmitted with appropriate safeguards so that they cannot be diverted into offensive weapons programs,” he said. Schneider said the reasoning behind missile defense-limiting export restrictions in the voluntary regime became outdated with the end of the Soviet Union and U.S. withdrawal from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty that restricted long-range missile defense development. When “the ABM Treaty was in force, there were strong prohibitions against exporting missile defense technology,” he said. “The circumstances now are considerably different,” he said. “Like many of the legacy arms control agreements, the concept in which the document was put together was for dealing with a different kind of requirement than we currently have,” he said. “The way in which the Missile Technology Control Regime is managed has tended to diminish the ability of the U.S. to share missile defense technology with allies,” he said. Critics of the proposal, however, have said allowing exceptions for missile defense technology transfers would weaken the regime.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
