October 5, 2007 :: Washington Times :: Analysis
James T. Hackett writes in the October 5 edition of The Washington Times discusses the successful September 28 intercept test conducted by the Ground Based Midcourse defense system. Although the test was a clear success and demonstrated both complexity and effectiveness, Hackett warns that opponents of the system will not be satisfied. A frequent complaint used by opponents of missile defense is to cite inadequate flight tests and a lack of operational testing of ground-based defenses, ignoring the details of the most recent intercept.
A ballistic missile launched from Kodiak, Alaska, flew thousands of miles southeast before being struck and destroyed some 100 miles over the ocean by an interceptor from Vandenberg Air Force Base on the California coast. It was an operational interceptor, same as the nearly two dozen now in silos in Alaska and California, launched from an operational site, using operational command and control, manned by operational crews and tracked by the operational radar at Beale AFB, Calif. If that is not an operational test, what is?
Hackett also attacks critics who argue the current system is not flexible enough to accurately identify and destroy real missiles. The current U.S. missile defense plan incorporates sea and land based radars, including the powerful X-band radar that can now discriminate between decoy and authentic missiles more successfully than ever. Hackett concludes the intercept should "quiet even the most severe critics." (Article)
» More stories on: Analysis
