FEASIBILITY: EARLY DEPLOYMENT IS THE CAUSE OF TECHNICAL FAILURES

EARLY DEPLOYMENT CAUSES TECHNICAL PROBLEMS

PAUL RICHTER, TIMES STAFF WRITER,  Los Angeles Times, January 19, 2000, SECTION: Part A; Page 1; HEADLINE: INTERCEPTOR MISSES TARGET IN MISSILE SHIELD TEST// acs-ln 1-24-2000

To deploy the system based on the results to date "would be a great mistake," said John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World, a Washington arms control advocacy group.

TRYING TO RUSH NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE COMPLICATES TECHNICAL BARRIERS

"DOD faces significant challenges in the NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE program because of high schedule and technical risks. Schedule risk is high because the schedule requires a large number of activities to be completed in a relatively short amount of time. The sequential nature of key development activities--such as not being able to proceed in earnest until a prime NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE contractor is selected in the spring of 1998--magnifies time pressures. Furthermore, developing and deploying an NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE system in the 6 years allotted under the 3+3 program will be a significant challenge for DOD given its past history with other weapon systems." GAO report, Dec. 12, 1997 [see appendix III]

DEMANDING QUICK DEPLOYMENT COMPLICATES TECHNICAL ISSUES

"DOD faces significant challenges in the NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE program because of high schedule and technical risks. Schedule risk is high because the schedule requires a large number of activities to be completed in a relatively short amount of time." GAO report, Dec. 12, 1997 [see appendix III]

RUSHING INTO NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE CAUSES TECHNICAL FAILURES

Forcing programs into unrealistic schedules is counterproductive because it causes program slips, increased costs and even failures. The Welch report documents that national missile defense is turning into the classic example of a program rushing to failure. Even given increased time, missile defense is an unreliable way to protect the country. As former Secretary of Defense John White said, "If the number of threats increases or the complexity of the threats increases, then this basic system is likely to provide poor protection to the United States." Even if it were possible to produce an effective missile defense, it would still not protect the U.S. from attack by nuclear weapons carried on cruise missiles. Furthermore, if an enemy launched Adummy" missiles not carrying any warheads, the missile defense interceptors would be wasted in destroying the dummies, leaving the U.S. with no defense against a second wave of missiles that do have warheads. Instead of pumping more unwanted money into a shaky ballistic missile defense, Congress must explore other more reliable ways to pursue the national security of the United States.