DATE=7/12/2000
TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP
TITLE=ANOTHER ANTI-MISSILE TEST FAILS
NUMBER=6-11919
BYLINE=ANDREW GUTHRIE
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
EDITOR=ASSIGNMENTS
TELEPHONE=619-3335
INTERNET=YES
CONTENT=
INTRO: The United States continues to debate building
a National Missile Defense System, but the latest test
firing of a missile designed to knock down an
aggressor missile failed.
This latest failure has increased the intensity of
debate as to whether President Clinton should order a
go-ahead of the entire system.
A group of Nobel laureates have signed a declaration
that the system cannot work and should be abandoned
while many in Congress insist that more tests are
needed to produce a working system. The proponents
add the system is desperately needed to head off the
terrible destruction possible if even a few nuclear
missiles fired from hostile nations hit the U-S.
We get a sampling of the new round of editorials
generated by this latest test now from __________ in
today's U-S Opinion Roundup.
TEXT: The National Missile Defense System or N-M-D
for short is a scaled-down version of a program first
suggested by President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, and
quickly dubbed "Star Wars" by the media. It was to be
a missile shield over the country that could repel a
full-blown intercontinental missile attack. Millions
of dollars were spent on preliminary science, but the
system was never built.
Now, with the Soviet Union dissolved, the new threat
is perceived to be a limited missile attack from such
hostile states as North Korea, Iraq or someday, even
Libya. And this latest, scaled-down system, involving
an Alaskan coastal radar, and several anti-missile
sites is being hotly contested. We begin with the
Detroit [Michigan] Free Press.
VOICE: The failure of a 40-year-old technology that
doomed last weekend's 100-million dollar test of the
National Missile Defense System underscores just how
many variables are involved here. If the Pentagon and
its defense contractors can't guarantee that the old
equipment works, how secure are Americans supposed to
feel about the new stuff? What's more, how emboldened
will so-called rogue states be about trying to sneak a
ballistic missile through the system? The Pentagon
plans to press forward with another test in October or
early November, determined to have this shield in
place by two-thousand-five. The all-ahead-full
mentality seems foolish, if not downright reckless.
TEXT: The Boston Globe also feels the system is
unworkable at present, and it complains that the test
was unfair to begin with, in favor of the defender
missile.
VOICE: If taxpayers are being asked to spend 60-
billion dollars or more on a national missile defense
that may not be able to defend the nation against
intercontinental ballistic missiles, then aren't
proponents of the unworkable system degrading the
nation's defense? This question arises following the
mechanical failure of last week's missile interceptor
test. ... the test was rigged; [Editors: "fixed"]
even if it had succeeded, it would have proved
nothing. Before heedless politicians and defense
contractors stampede Americans into paying for a
system that may make the nation less secure, the
capabilities of the proposed system should be
evaluated by distinguished scientists who are truly
independent.
TEXT: Coming to the missile's defense is The New York
Post, which complains:
VOICE: In the short term, it's hard to describe
Saturday's test as anything other than a fiasco. Not
only did the interceptor not work properly, neither
did the target. Back to the drawing board? Maybe.
Maybe not. The political opposition to the
development of any sort of a ballistic-missile defense
system is formidable. The usual domestic suspects -
- lefty Democrats, most of the media and the National
Council of Churches - - are against it. Come the end
of the day, however, the United States will proceed
with a missile shield, or not - - depending on its own
best interests. At least, we hope so. ... There's no
reason to believe that America can't develop and
deploy an effective - - if limited - - anti-
ballistic-missile.
TEXT: For the Los Angeles Times however, this latest
failure sends a clear message that:
VOICE: It's time to forget about the arbitrary
deadline set for starting work on this hugely
expensive and technologically dubious project ... and
reassess whether it would be the most effective way to
counter potential missile threats from hostile states.
TEXT: Adds Nebraska's Omaha World-Herald: "Mr.
President, this important and costly device plainly
needs more work. Either Governor Bush or Vice
President Gore, as the next president, is more than
capable of making the decision."
However Florida's Times-Union in Jacksonville comes to
the effort's defense suggesting:
VOICE: The "failure" of a missile defense system test
is no reason to give up the program. The purpose of a
test is to find out if something is wrong, so it can
be fixed. ... Planners didn't expect the system to
work perfectly at first. That is why they planned so
many tests. If it's still failing regularly in the
later stages of the experimentation, then there will
be cause for concern - - but not now.
TEXT: And in Hawaii, within the theoretical range of
North Korea's still-unfired Taepo Dong Two missile,
[Editors: maximum estimated range 5954 kilometers] The
Honolulu Star-Bulletin says: "President Clinton should
authorize continuing the system's development until a
decision is made on its effectiveness," adding:
VOICE: Yes, this project is horribly expensive. But
leaving the nation vulnerable to missile attack could
be far more costly. Senator Joseph Lieberman,
Democrat of Connecticut, noted that congress has
authorized some 16 more tests. "Too much has been
made of this one test over the weekend, said [Senator]
Lieberman, a member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee. ... the latest failure isn't conclusive
and shouldn't precipitate a decision to abandon the
project.
TEXT: Back in the Midwest, however, The St. Louis
Post-Dispatch is not convinced.
VOICE: Following last week's spectacular failure of a
missile defense test rigged for success, President
Bill Clinton must decide whether to spend 60-billion
to begin building a limited system that we may not
need and that shows no signs of working if we did.
The second test failure, against one partial success,
began with a two-hour delay due to a battery
malfunction (imagine that happening during a real
attack.) Then the missile interceptor tumbled off
course and the kill vehicle failed to separate from
its booster. At this point, it would seem that the
only thing this flying technological turkey [Editors:
U-S slang for "a failure"] has going for it is that
Mr. Clinton could present its existence as evidence
that Democrats - - specifically the vice President -
are not soft on defense.
TEXT: On that somewhat sarcastic note, we conclude
this sampling of opinion on the most recent test of a
limited Missile Defense System. (Signed)
NEB/ANG/PT
12-Jul-2000 15:49 PM EDT (12-Jul-2000 1949 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
