FEASIBILITY: NMD WILL NOT PROTECT US FROM MISSILE ATTACK

EFFECTIVE NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM IS A FANTASY

Editorials; The Atlanta Journal and Constitution July 8, 1999, SECTION: Editorial; Pg. 18A HEADLINE: Missile defense a costly fantasy // lnu-acs

If the United States could build a missile-defense system capable of shooting down nuclear-tipped missiles launched by nations such as North Korea and Iran, it should do so as quickly as possible.

But of course, given the capability we should also turn lead into gold, cure the common cold and find some way to ease traffic jams on I-285. Sadly, all three of those things are beyond our technological reach.

And so is a missile-defense system.

THERE IS NO EASY AND QUICK SOLUTION TO MISSILE THREATS FOUND IN NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE

Despite the prowess of American technology and the passionate politics surrounding this issue, there are no quick, cheap or easy solutions in missile defense. Military commanders and defense planners should proceed with low expectations for the ability of these systems, if deployed, to provide their troops, the nation, or US allies any appreciable degree of protection against longer-range ballistic missile threats. Defense planners should consider whether more realistic schedules and elimination of duplicative programs could reduce the approximately $30 billion planned for missile defense efforts over the next seven years and allocate the savings to more pressing defense needs.

USA MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM CANNOT PROTECT US FROM MISSILE THREATS FROM ABROAD

Janadas Devan The Straits Times (Singapore), October 31, 1999, SECTION: Review Focus shield"; Pg. 41 HEADLINE: So many possible holes // ln-acs-11-11-99

Professors Theodore Postol, George Lewis and John Pike write: "Although only one effective countermeasure would be needed to defeat a US defence, that defence must be able to defeat every possible combination of countermeasures.

"Moreover, if it is to be effective in countering weapons of mass destruction, the US system must work the first time it is used.

"The proposed system does not appear even close to capable of meeting these goals."

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM, WHEN COMPLETED, WILL MAKE AMERICA NO SAFER

Kerry J. Watkins USA TODAY April 14, 1999, SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 26A HEADLINE: Simpler missile shield // lnu-acs

When this costly project is completed, the USA will be no safer

from the threat of a hostile attack. The proposed, complex missile

defense system will not be effective against low-flying, air-launched

cruise missiles or high-sonic nuclear missiles launched from submarines

near our coast.

ATTACKER ALWAYS HAS THE ADVANTAGE WITH TECHNOLOGICAL DEFENSES LIKE NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE

Lawrence Freedman is professor of war studies at King's College London, The Independent (London) August 22, 1999, SECTION: COMMENT; Pg. 24 HEADLINE: WHY AMERICA SAYS IT NOW NEEDS 'SON OF STAR WARS';  THE WEST NO LONGER REQUIRES A NUCLEAR CAPABILITY, BUT IT FEARS THAT OTHERS STILL DO. // lnu-acs

The history of more than 40 years of attempts to find a way to block a ballistic missile attack is not encouraging. The problem is that the attacker has the advantage of surprise and also can employ a number of ruses to confuse the defence, such as decoys and additional warheads. The much trumpeted success of the Patriot missile in dealing with relatively short-range Scud attacks by Iraq on Israel and Saudi Arabia during the Gulf war turned out on closer examination to have been greatly exaggerated. Moreover, when dealing with nuclear missiles the margin of error is small: any successful penetration of the defensive shield spells disaster.

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS WILL ONLY WORK IF THE ENEMY COOPERATES FULLY -- AN OBVIOUS FANTASY

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

Why won't it work? There are lots of reasons, but let me begin by quoting Dr. Richard L. Garwin, a distinguished physicist. In an article in "The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists," Garwin says, "Time and again, the armed services or defense contractors propose weapon systems that work only if the enemy will cooperate fully." (My italics) The problem is, enemies don't cooperate.