Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Boston Globe
April 11, 2008
YOUR APRIL 8 editorial "The Bush-Putin summit" takes issue with missile defense technology, holding to the uninformed assertion that it doesn't work. It certainly does work. Your conclusion that the current technology cannot discriminate decoys from actual warheads is likely based on the word of so-called experts - people who have no access to information on advances in decoy discrimination technology because of the highly classified nature of such data.
Five successful intercept tests from 1999 to 2002 used the type of decoys we would expect from countries such as North Korea and Iran, and future tests will introduce more challenging decoys to keep up with expected threats.
As for how "realistic" the missile tests are, I'm not certain what you mean. For tests of the long-range system, we launch a target missile from Kodiak, Alaska, and an interceptor missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The trajectory closely replicates a launch at the United States from North Korea. We use an operational radar at Beale Air Force Base in California, and the operational command and control system staffed by military operators from US Northern Command, the same people who man the consoles 24/7. The operators don't know when the target missile will be launched, only that there is a scenario indicating a period of alert, as would likely occur during a real-world situation. We make the tests as realistic as we can within prescribed safety and environmental constraints. Apparently, the only "realistic" test you would accept would involve launching a missile at the United States, and I think that most people would agree that this is simply not acceptable for obvious reasons.
RICK LEHNER, Director, public affairs, US Missile Defense Agency, Washington
Editor's Note: The editorial referred to did not appear in the Current News Early Bird.
April 11, 2008
YOUR APRIL 8 editorial "The Bush-Putin summit" takes issue with missile defense technology, holding to the uninformed assertion that it doesn't work. It certainly does work. Your conclusion that the current technology cannot discriminate decoys from actual warheads is likely based on the word of so-called experts - people who have no access to information on advances in decoy discrimination technology because of the highly classified nature of such data.
Five successful intercept tests from 1999 to 2002 used the type of decoys we would expect from countries such as North Korea and Iran, and future tests will introduce more challenging decoys to keep up with expected threats.
As for how "realistic" the missile tests are, I'm not certain what you mean. For tests of the long-range system, we launch a target missile from Kodiak, Alaska, and an interceptor missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The trajectory closely replicates a launch at the United States from North Korea. We use an operational radar at Beale Air Force Base in California, and the operational command and control system staffed by military operators from US Northern Command, the same people who man the consoles 24/7. The operators don't know when the target missile will be launched, only that there is a scenario indicating a period of alert, as would likely occur during a real-world situation. We make the tests as realistic as we can within prescribed safety and environmental constraints. Apparently, the only "realistic" test you would accept would involve launching a missile at the United States, and I think that most people would agree that this is simply not acceptable for obvious reasons.
RICK LEHNER, Director, public affairs, US Missile Defense Agency, Washington
Editor's Note: The editorial referred to did not appear in the Current News Early Bird.