![]() |
|
BUILDING A DEFENSE | |
![]() August 9, 2000 ![]() |
![]() |
In the first of a two-part series, Jeffrey Kaye of KCET, Los Angeles, examines the the question of whether to build a national missile defense system. |
JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, whether to build a national missile defense for the United States. Here is the first of two reports on that issue by Jeffrey Kaye of KCET, Los Angeles. SPOKESMAN: Three, two, one, mark...
LIEUTENANT GENERAL RONALD KADISH: We were disappointed with that. JEFFREY KAYE: At a news briefing, Ronald Kadish, the Air Force lieutenant general in charge of the program, said a booster rocket malfunctioned.
JEFFREY KAYE: This was the fifth flight test in the program, the last one before President Clinton is supposed to decide whether to go ahead with a limited missile defense system, or push the issue to the next administration. The U.S. has been committed to developing a missile defense since March, 1999, when Congress and the President agreed to build a national missile defense system as soon as is technologically feasible.
JEFFREY KAYE: The four criteria are: The system's technological feasibility;
the nature of the threat; the reaction of other countries, including
NATO allies, Russia, and China; and the cost, now estimated at a minimum
of $60 billion. There has been vigorous debate on all four issues, in
the U.S. and overseas. Animation developed by Boeing and TRW, two of
the project's contractors, demonstrates how the system is supposed to
work. It is intended to protect the United States against an attack
of 20 or fewer missiles. Satellites in orbit would scan for heat generated
by a missile launched towards the U.S. Within seconds, the satellites
would notify the Battle Management Center located inside Cheyenne Mountain,
Colorado. The center would direct an interception. Radar systems would
narrow in on the incoming warhead. Officials would fire off an interceptor
missile which carries a so-called "kill vehicle." By using
its own navigation, as well as signals from the command center, the
kill vehicle would hurtle on a collision course, destroying the warhead
by smashing into it above the atmosphere. The immediate decision facing
President Clinton is whether to start construction of the x-band radar
installation on the remote Alaskan island of Shemya. |
![]() |
Getting the system to work | |
JEFFREY KAYE: And it will take four years? JACQUES GANSLER: Yeah. And then, of course, you want to evaluate it, and test it to make sure it works. JEFFREY KAYE: Getting the complex system to work is a huge challenge. So far, engineers have tried only three times to hit a missile in flight. One test succeeded; two failed. The tests used substitute components since the actual interceptor rocket and kill vehicle are months behind schedule. Nonetheless, Gansler says he is confident in the system's overall design.
JEFFREY KAYE: But even in the U.S. Defense Department, Gansler's optimism is not fully shared. Philip Coyle oversees the Pentagon's testing programs. He's responsible for making sure the nation's new weapons are properly evaluated. He's issued cautionary reports about the national missile defense program. PHILIP COYLE, Director, Pentagon Testing: The testing program has been slipping. All of these things have turned out to be more difficult than we thought. Just manufacturing the kill vehicle, preparing for the tests, and achieving success in the tests has taken longer than we thought. JEFFREY KAYE: So, can you say yet whether the system is technologically feasible? PHILIP COYLE: Aspects of the program have already shown, been shown to be technologically feasible. We've shown that we can make those radars work. We've shown that we can hit a bullet with a bullet. There are other aspects that we simply haven't even tried yet, let alone demonstrated. JEFFREY KAYE: So, it's a question mark as to whether it's technologically feasible from your standpoint? PHILIP COYLE: Yes.
SPOKESMAN: Medium balloon number one deployed. Medium balloon number two deployed. JEFFREY KAYE: Initial testing has included crude decoys such as these balloons inflating in space during the first flight test in 1997. Animation by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group opposed to national missile defense, shows that by putting an incoming warhead inside a balloon, the missile, traveling at 17,000 miles an hour, would be hard to pick out. Many decoy balloons would make the task even more complicated. THEODORE POSTOL: The national missile defense interceptor cannot tell the difference between warheads and the simplest of balloon decoys. JEFFREY KAYE: Theodore Postol, a physicist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is one in a growing list of critics of the program. THEODORE POSTOL: This means that the national missile defense system can simply not work. JEFFREY KAYE: 50 Nobel Prize winners as well as the American Physical Society, which represents 42,000 physicists worldwide, have said the current system has not been proven workable. Ex-military officials including former Secretary of Defense William Perry and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili, have urged the President to delay deployment of the system until the technology problem is solved. The Pentagon's Philip Coyle also says it is too soon to tell whether the system could distinguish a warhead from a clever disguise. JEFFREY KAYE: Do you believe that it is feasible... This defense system will be able to discriminate?
JEFFREY KAYE: So, this is a question mark? PHILIP COYLE: Yes. |
![]() |
Dealing with decoys | |
JEFFREY KAYE: But according to Gansler, by using a combination of radar and infrared technology, the missile defense system will be able to tell the difference between a warhead and decoys, although he says he can't disclose what the system can and cannot do.
JEFFREY KAYE: Besides the question of whether the system will be effective against a missile attack, there is also debate over another of the President's criteria, the nature of the threat. U.S. policy makers say North Korea poses the major danger. A North Korean missile launch two years ago, and a report from a special commission prompted an administration reassessment of the threat. Last January, Defense Secretary William Cohen said the administration had reversed its position, and would support deployment of a missile defense system.
JEFFREY KAYE: Top administration officials say a missile threat could also come from Iraq, and from Iran, which receives help from North Korea. Both nations are developing missiles that could threaten the United States, say officials. There is also concern about an accidental launch from Russia. JACQUES GANSLER: The chances of that happening and destroying large American populations is not zero, and if it's not... if it is significant at all, then it is our responsibility to be concerned about that. JEFFREY KAYE: Could you lay out the scenario under which North Korea might or would shoot a missile at the United States? JACQUES GANSLER: Well, I would start out by not wanting to pick any one country for this overall concept. The concept here is that a country, a regional power, chooses, for one reason or another... gets involved in a conflict, but chooses to try to keep the United States out of that conflict by saying, "if you come in, we will threaten your cities," and if we have no means of preventing that, then that threat is a credible threat. If we have a means of preventing it, we can deter that threat. JEFFREY KAYE: Gansler says nations such as North Korea, Iraq, and Iran are irrational and unpredictable.
|
![]() |
Rogue states a threat? | |
JOHN PIKE: This rogue state threat, I think, is basically made up. JEFFREY KAYE: John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists contends the North Korean threat and capability have been overstated.
JEFFREY KAYE: Pike commissioned these satellite photographs of North Korea's missile test facility. He says they show North Korea's missile development program is rudimentary, and does not warrant building a defense against it. JOHN PIKE: North Korea has only conducted a couple of tests and has built the facilities that you'd need if you are only going to test every couple of years. JEFFREY KAYE: You have called this a bare-bones facility. Why? JOHN PIKE: Well, there is surprisingly little here, apart from one launch pad, one building that you could store a couple of missiles in and an area where you could do the countdown and follow the launch. There is basically nothing else there.
WILLIAM COHEN: One summit doesn't change a tiger into a domestic cat. We have to, in fact, see whether or not the North Koreans are going to continue to follow through with their relationship with the South. Just earlier we had the top negotiator of the North Koreans saying that the production and development of ICBMs is something that is a sovereign right, and they intend to continue to develop it. JEFFREY KAYE: As for Iraq, Saddam Hussein's long range missile capabilities have been overstated, according to John Pike, and he believes Iran is more rational than U.S. military planners think.
JEFFREY KAYE: But of all the potential threats, it is North Korea's capability that is driving the Clinton administration's timetable for getting the Alaska radar system built by 2005. Beyond that, under the current plan, the rest of the system will be deployed over the next five years under a schedule to be determined by the next administration. JIM LEHRER: Two days ago, Secretary Cohen said he was delaying a further recommendation to the President for at least several weeks; he said a number of difficult issues remain to be resolved. |
![]() |
Copyright © 2000 MacNeil-Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.