April 28, 2004 :: Center for Security Policy :: Analysis
The Center for Security Policy weighs in on the fights in Congress over missile defense appropriations, with some harsh criticism of the current distribution of funds. The problem is the support of systems like the ground-based Kinetic Energy Interceptor, which is absorbing billions each year depriving far more effective programs from seeing the light of day.
Illustrating the limitations of the KEI, the Center notes that:
In fact, KEI program manager Terry Little, has produced a chart which notes, with considerable understatement, that a “Risk Item” is the fact that “Geo-Political Basing Constraints are a Driver of KEI Military Utility.” Just how much so is revealed by Mr. Little’s assessment that in order to secure coverage of Iranian ICBM launch sites, the U.S. would have to deploy KEI systems in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Uzbekistan. Similar coverage of North Korea would require KEI deployments in Russia. Recent experience with at least some of these countries suggests that they may prove to be unreliable, or at the very least insecure, basing countries.
At the same time that funding for the KEI is up, to 4.2 billion, programs such as Aegis, THAAD, and most importantly space-based interceptors, are being neglected. (Article)
» More stories on: Analysis, Land-Based Systems, Policy
» Missile system details for: Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI)
