FEASIBILITY: NMD COSTS ARE UNACCEPTABLY HIGH

FULL BUSH-STYLE MISSILE DEFENSE WILL COST $240 BILLION OR MORE

William D. Hartung and Michelle Ciarrocca, World Policy Institute at New School University. January 21, 2001 The Baltimore Sun SECTION: PERSPECTIVE, Pg. 1C HEADLINE: Reviving Star Wars; President Bush, with his selection for defense secretary, places national missile defense high on U.S. agenda //VT2002acsln

The cost estimates for the limited NMD system currently being tested range from the modest $60 billion figure from the Congressional Budget Office up to $120 billion. Logically, a missile defense "triad" consisting of sea-, space- and ground-based interceptors - the system Bush and his Republican counterparts are advocating - could cost $240 billion or more.

WE HAVE ALREADY SPENT $100 BILLION ON NMD AND HAVE LITTLE TO SHOW FOR IT

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

If we do not yet have a nationwide ballistic missile defense system, it is certainly not for lack of will or adequate funding. Since the 1950s, the United States has given ballistic missile defense research and development the highest priority, has spent well over $ 100 billion and has involved the best American technological talent in pursuing every promising lead.

COST OF DEFENDING AMERICA FROM BALLISTIC MISSILES WOULD BE HUGE

A 1996 Congressional Budget Office report estimated that the cost to build, deploy and operate the ballistic missile systems envisioned in the "Defend America Act" through the year 2030 was between $78 and $184 billion. While the latest proposals are slimmed down, they are still very expensive. Increased funding for national missile defense saps funds from other Pentagon priorities such as ships, aircraft, tanks and quality of life.

TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES CAN'T BE SOLVED WITH MORE MONEY

"The major problem . . .It's been the technical difficulties. I will not point to just funding for it, I would point, primarily to the technical difficulties meeting the challenge of intercepting a bullet with a bullet, if you will, in space."

General Lester Lyles, Head of BMDO 1997 testimony [Appendix II]

WE ARE CURRENTLY MOVING AS FAST AS WE CAN

Question from Sen. Levin: "Are we moving as -- on the development front -- as quickly as we can?"

Response from General Ralston: "Yes, sir."

Response from General Lyles: "Yes, sir."

General Joseph W. Ralston, USAF, Vice Chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Lt. Gen. Lester L. Lyles, Director, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization before the Senate Armed Services Committee, October 2, 1998

$120 BILLION SPENT AND WE STILL CAN'T HIT TARGETS WITH ANY ACCURACY

The U.S. has already spent $120 billion on missile defenses with little to show; including $67.7 billion since Reagan's Star Wars. Why throw good money after bad?

To date, the U.S. has spent $120 billion for national and theater missile systems. Even with this expenditure, the U.S. was able to destroy only a small proportion of crude Iraqi Scud missiles in the Persian Gulf War. After more than 30 years, the U.S. should have learned that expensive defensive missile deployment (as opposed to research) is a dubious proposition.

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM WILL BE TOO EXPENSIVE TO BUILD

Joseph Perkins The San Diego Union-Tribune March 12, 1999, SECTION: OPINION Pg. B-11: HEADLINE: Why we need full speed ahead on a national missile defense system; As One argument is that developing and deploying a national missile defense will be prohibitively expensive, costing somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 billion.

However, a recent 77-page report by the Heritage Foundation, crafted by 14 respected defense analysts, concludes that a sea-based system capable of of protecting U.S. cities and shores from missile attack would cost less than $8 billion, while taking less than four years to deploy.

Even if this sea-based missile defense system cost, say, twice as much to deploy, that hardly seems too high a price to protect the American people from hostile missiles launched by, say, Iraq's Saddam Hussein or North Korea's Kim Dae Jung or, not entirely inconceivable, China's Jiang Zemen.

USA IS THROWING GOOD MONEY AFTER BAD WITH NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SPENDING

Charles Seife New Scientist April 10, 1999 , Pg. 14 HEADLINE: Pie in the sky // lnu-acs

If, as some experts suggest, shooting down ballistic missiles is really beyond the capacity of even the best available technology, the US government may be poised to throw good money after bad. Congress has just passed a bill that requires the US to deploy a national ballistic missile defence system (This Week, 27 March, p 27). The dollar 6.6 billion project would use a "kill vehicle" based on the same broad principles as THAAD. There are also other projects in the pipeline, such as an airborne laser and a sea-based defence system.