DATE=1/21/2000
TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP
TITLE=ANOTHER ANTI-MISSILE MISSILE FAILURE
NUMBER=6-11645
BYLINE=ANDREW GUTHRIE
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
EDITOR=ASSIGNMENTS
TELEPHONE=619-3335
CONTENT=
INTRO: An unsuccessful anti-ballistic missile test by
the United States is a popular topic on many newspaper
editorial pages at week's end, as the nation debates
the wisdom of going ahead with a defense against
possible missile attacks by so-called "rogue" nations.
Now, here with a sampling is _____________ and today's
U-S Opinion Roundup.
TEXT: During his presidency, Ronald Reagan confronted
the then Soviet Union with a new idea - a shield of
space satellites and special missiles that would
destroy hostile intercontinental ballistic missiles
(I-C-B-Ms). The project, which would have taken years
to develop and possibly trillions of dollars to build,
quickly took on the name "Star Wars" after the popular
motion pictures of the time.
However, after billions of research and development
dollars, and a change in U-S administrations, the idea
came to be considered impracticable, though some
research did continue.
Last year, in response to studies indicating the
United States could be attacked by a single I-C-B-M
fired from a so-called "rogue" nation such as Iraq or
North Korea, the missile defense idea was reborn on a
smaller scale. Now, the idea is to develop an
interceptor that could track and knock down a single
hostile missile, rather than a fleet of such missiles.
/// OPT ///
Another problem say critics, is that Russia feels very
strongly that such a system, if implemented, violates
the terms of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
/// END OPT ///
The latest test, this week, of this scaled-down anti-
missile missile failed, prompting a new round of
editorials both pro and con on the topic. This is what
The Los Angeles Times had to say on the subject.
VOICE: The Pentagon blames a pair of malfunctioning
sensors for Tuesday's failure of a 100-million dollar
test of a missile interceptor system that it hopes can
defend the country against intercontinental attack
from rouge states. The test, which followed a claimed
successful test in October, saw an interceptor rocket
fired from Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands try
to destroy a mock warhead launched from Vandenberg Air
force Base. It may have come very close to
succeeding, but in the warhead-killing business close
isn't good enough. An interceptor must strike an
incoming warhead directly. Until that feat can be
demonstrated with some consistency, deployment of
what's known as a National Missile Defense [N-M-D]
system makes no sense.
TEXT: The Pentagon project also comes in for
criticism from The Atlanta Constitution, which
compares the test firing to a Broadway show.
VOICE: This week's test ... can be likened to a full-
dress rehearsal. Every actor in the cast played a
part; even a computerized battle-management system
made its debut. But the finale fell flat. The
interceptor missed its target, a dummy warhead. Given
this last-act fizzle, a smart producer might cut his
losses and fold [cancel] the show. But neither the
White House nor the Pentagon has shown that much
pragmatism.
TEXT: Describing it as "A big test and a big
failure," The San Francisco Chronicle says the project
is "An Anti-Missile Program That Appears Off Course,"
and adds that "Time and credibility may be running out
on the anti-missile missile ...
The Chicago Tribune, trying to explain the difficulty
of the interception by calling it "Hitting a bullet
with a bullet," adds:
VOICE: ... the test clearly demonstrated one thing:
It's premature to order deployment of this 12-point-
five-billion dollar shield. It's not ready. ... This
is a system well worth spending the money to
thoroughly research and develop - and to deploy if it
can be proved to be effective in deterring or downing
enemy missiles. But so far, it is not yet feasible.
TEXT: Newsday on New York's Long Island expressed
skepticism as well.
VOICE: Don't rush to deploy [a] costly missile-
defense system that violates the A-B-M [Anti-
Ballistic-Missile] treaty. ... There are plenty of
reasons why a hasty decision to deploy an entry-level
missile-defense network would be a bad idea for the
United States. The putative threat it's designed to
counter - a desperate attack by at most a few missiles
from a loose-cannon state such as North Korea or Iraq
- is farfetched. The low-ball cost estimate, certain
to increase at warp (high) speed even if the system is
never expanded ... is 12-point-seven-billion (dollars)
and counting ... Oh, and by the way, there's no
assurance - in fact there are serious doubts - that
the U-S missile-defense network could actually work as
advertised.
TEXT: In Oklahoma, The Tulsa World is discouraged
both at the cost and the result of this latest test.
VOICE: The idea of satellites and missiles protecting
the United States from foreign nuclear attack ...
persists. But it took another blow this week. For
100-million dollars, the nation got to see the
Pentagon take a shot at an incoming mock warhead - and
miss. ... This latest test follows reports of another
test in October that at first was said to be
successful. It later turned out that it, too, failed.
... Should the United States continue its research and
tests into such a system? Yes. After all, technology
does change. But there is no need to rush into a
costly and possibly unworkable system too soon.
TEXT: Here now is what The Fort Worth [Texas] Star-
Telegram, has to say on the subject:
VOICE: The kill vehicle came "extremely close,"
officials said, to making an encounter of the
destructive kind. Of course, they weren't pitching
horseshoes; therefore, close doesn't count. ... The
failed test, however, does not provide conclusive
proof that such a system cannot be made to work. But
it is [a] significant setback that should give
President Clinton pause about his plan to approve the
deployment of the system later this year.
TEXT: However, The Washington Times, which strongly
supports development of the system, reminds everyone:
VOICE: ... The fact is that you test a system to see
if it works, right? ... And it's not as though there
aren't good reasons out there to work overtime to make
N-M-D functional. Last week, it was ... revealed that
Iran is thought to be close to a nuclear bomb, thanks
to the helpfulness of Russia ... In other words, the
critics should not be so ready to rejoice. We will
all live to regret it if we don't get the technology
right in time.
TEXT: On that note, we conclude this sampling of
opinion for and against the development of a new U-S
anti-missile shield.
NEB/ANG/JP
21-Jan-2000 15:14 PM EDT (21-Jan-2000 2014 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
