FEASIBILITY: NMD WILL FAIL BECAUSE OPPONENTS SIMPLY WON'T USE MISSILES

NMD WILL ALWAYS BE VULNERABLE TO OTHER FORMS OF DELIVERY

Jack Ruina March 04, 2001, The Washington Post SECTION: OUTLOOK; Pg. B03 HEADLINE: 46 Years, No Winners. Aim Elsewhere //VT2002acsln

Ultimately, what speaks most against a nationwide missile defense is the fact that even if we succeeded in building one, our vulnerability would remain. A potential adversary does not have to rely on ballistic missiles to deliver a warhead. A small nation could easily resort to using planes, ships, cruise missiles or, as has been facetiously suggested, to hiding a warhead in a bale of marijuana, the shipment of which defies most detection.

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE WOULD BE LIKE OUR MAGINOT LINE -- THEY WOULD JUST GO AROUND IT

Richard Durbin St. Louis Post-Dispatch March 23, 1999, SECTION: EDITORIAL, Pg. B7, HEADLINE: STAR WARS PLAN WOULD UNDERMINE U.S. SECURITY // lnu-acs

The national missile defense plan is our Maginot Line. It would give us a false sense of security and be completely ineffective in countering threats that simply go around it - like the terrorist with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in his suitcase. It could be totally overwhelmed by intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) held by Russia, and its existence would encourage nuclear countries to defeat it with devastating force.

SO-CALLED "ROGUE" NATIONS WOULD SIMPLY USE ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY MECHANISMS TO GET AROUND NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel May 25, 1999 SECTION: News Pg. 14 HEADLINE: Missile defense no more than a delusion // lnu-acs

Terrorists have proved they are a menace, and countries such as North Korea could be threats in the future. But terrorists don't use ballistic missiles; they use truck bombs. And rogue nations confronted with a missile shield would probably seek ways to evade it.

DESPERATE AND IRRATIONAL LEADERS WILL USE LOW TECH DELIVERY, NOT MISSILES

JONATHAN F. REICHERT, Ph.D., is president of TeachSpin Inc., The Buffalo News

May 2, 1999, SECTION: VIEWPOINTS, Pg. 1H HEADLINE: STAR WARS REVISITED;

U.S. STILL PURSUING A TECHNOLOGICAL MIRACLE TO PROTECT IT FROM;

HARM.THERE'S JUST ONE PROBLEM -- IT WON'T WORK // lnu-acs

Suppose a crazed dictator or fundamentalist terrorist wished to attack this country and do us great harm. Why use an extremely expensive, technically sophisticated, physically visible device, when cheap, simple, readily available weapons also are available?

First, it isn't easy to build, test and launch an ICBM. It is much, much more difficult to make a reliable ICBM than it is to make a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon. And if you do have an ICBM and launch it at the U.S., we will know exactly where it came from. That we can easily do with our present satellite technology. Our retaliation would be swift, severe and certain.

THE USA MAY BE VULNERABLE TO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, BUT THEY WON'T COME ON MISSILES

This is true; the terrorist bombings in Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center, and the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995 demonstrate how vulnerable the United States and our allies are to an attack using a weapon of mass destruction. However, a ballistic missile is the least likely delivery vehicle for a nuclear, chemical or biological warhead. A ballistic missile launch would immediately betray its origin and the U.S. response would be devastating. However, a weapon of mass destruction could be smuggled into this country in a ship, airplane, truck or even a suitcase. Even the perfect missile defense system could not defend against these contingencies. A better policy would be to destroy these weapons before they could be used, and to improve civil defense capabilities to minimize the casualties should a terrorist attack occur on U.S. soil.

THE THREAT FROM SO-CALLED "ROGUE" STATES WILL NOT COME IN THE FORM OF BALLISTIC MISSILES

The "rogue state" problem is often cited as a reason for establishing a nationwide missile defense system. But these states do not represent a missile threat to US territory or population. The states that might theoretically consider attacking the United States with long-range missiles--if they had them--are few in number, well-known and weak, only five of over 195 states in the world: Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, and possibly Syria. All five have unpopular and shaky regimes; and the North Korean regime in particular, which has done the most in missile development, may collapse or be absorbed by South Korea. All of these states are more concerned with their own regions than with the nature of their relationships with the United States. If one of these governments did decide to attack the United States, it would be far more likely to resort to terrorism, the favored weapon of small states against powerful ones, than to long-range missile attack.

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE WILL NOT MEET THE PROLIFERATION THREAT BECAUSE IT IS DEPENDENT ON ONE MODE OF DELIVERY

PAUL MANN Aviation Week and Space Technology July 5, 1999 ; Pg. 30 HEADLINE: Historic Turn Eyed In Missile Defense // lnu-acs

BUT TREATY SUPPORTERS counter that the NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE program will not meet the proliferation threat, either. The thin, ground-based NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE system with about 20 deployed interceptors envisioned by the Clinton Administration could not provide the extremely high level of confidence needed against a mere handful of perhaps 20 enemy warheads -- even warheads bereft of decoys and other countermeasures, according to Richard L. Garwin, another member of the Rumsfeld Commission. ''NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE would have no capability against biological warfare bomblets or against a [nuclear warhead] inside a large enclosing balloon, nor would it discriminate a warhead in a small balloon from say 10 empty decoy balloons. It would neither see nor be able to intercept short-range ballistic missiles launched from ships near U.S. shores; it would neither see nor intercept short-range cruise missiles launched from ships.''

SHORT RANGE MISSILES AVOID NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE INTERCEPTION

JONATHAN F. REICHERT, Ph.D., is president of TeachSpin Inc., The Buffalo News

May 2, 1999, SECTION: VIEWPOINTS, Pg. 1H HEADLINE: STAR WARS REVISITED;

U.S. STILL PURSUING A TECHNOLOGICAL MIRACLE TO PROTECT IT FROM;

HARM.THERE'S JUST ONE PROBLEM -- IT WON'T WORK // lnu-acs

There are, of course, other effective techniques. Short-range (50 to 200 miles) missiles would easily escape an antimissile defense system. Do you remember the Patriot missile defense? It was heralded as protecting the Israelis and the Saudis from Saddam's Scud missiles during the Persian Gulf War. However, careful analysis of the propaganda videos by the Union of Concerned Scientists show it was almost 100 percent ineffective.