November 6, 2007 :: Analysis
Ed Feulner, President of the Heritage Foundation, discusses the shifting arguments against missile defense systems in the November 6 edition of the Pittsburgh-Tribune Review. In the past, politically-minded scientists have speculated that missile defense would not work, that the technology did not exist. In today's environment where missile defense testing has considerably improved, many of the same missile defense opponents are now changing position, and are now suggesting that missile defenses will be too effective.
An Associated Press story last month quoted six scientists who "are skeptical that the U.S. missile-defense system can work." Yet, strangely, "they believe that in terms of raw speed, U.S. interceptors in Poland could catch a Russian ICBM launched from western Russia at any part of the continental United States."
Feulner notes also the 2000 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists that questioned whether it missile defense was technologically feasible. The UCS assumption was that between the logistical difficulty in "hitting a bullet with a bullet" and missile's defense countermeasures, "it [made] no sense to begin deployment." Last month's successful test of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) in the Pacific proved once again that missile defense can destroy long-range missiles. In fact, "It wasn't the first time...experts were proven wrong. Over the last seven years these four programs have passed their tests— "done the impossible"—roughly 80 percent of the time."
Now, the same group of scientists that criticized the system for being too unreliable attack missile defense as being too effective. The U.S. currently is planning to deploy ten Ground Based Interceptors to Poland to defend against a missile attack from Iran. Critics now say that the missile interceptors are so sophisticated that they could conceivably intercept the more advanced Russian missiles. Feulner concludes, "The question Americans ought to ask is, "Why is that a bad thing?" These scientists are undermining their own past arguments. They now insist this technology can protect us, even against threats it's not intended to thwart. That would make missile defense one of the few federal programs to deliver more than it promised." (Article)
» More stories on: Analysis
