Missile Defense Update from Center for Defense Information

[swag]

NB#1: The Sept. 1, 2006, test of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system included an intercept of a target. CDI Research Analyst Victoria Samson demonstrates that all is not how it seems with “One Small Step for MDA, But Light Years Away from a Reliable System.” In her analysis, she cautions that, due to all the unknowns in the system, “The champagne should be kept to a minimum, as there are many caveats to the test’s ‘success.’” Her piece is available at http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3656&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=6&from_page=index.cfm.

NB#2: In “Hackers’ delight,” CDI Research Analyst Victoria Samson reviews a recent report by the Pentagon’s Inspector General’s office which warns about the network security of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system. This network offers such little protection that a draft version of this same report recommended shutting down the system immediately until the problems were fixed. Her piece was published in the September/October 2006 issue of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and can be accessed at http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so06samson.

NB#3: A letter from congressional Democrats dated Aug. 29, 2006, asks Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when exactly the Pentagon plans to hold a "comprehensive and realistic end-to-end test of the limited missile defense system," the need for which he commented on while visiting an interceptor site in Ft. Greely, Alaska, recently. The letter was signed by Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., and Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif. The letter can be read here: http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/Rumsfeld.NMD.Test.pdf.

NB#4: In an op-ed by CDI Research Analyst Victoria Samson, “North Korea Helps United States Waste Missile Money,” she explains how supporters of missile defense are manipulating fears created by North Korea’s tests of its ballistic missiles in July into support for the missile defense system. She points out, “he current actions by North Korea are dovetailing with the Bush administration's arguments for missile defense, and it has worked out nicely for the bellicose on both sides.” This commentary originally appeared in the Topeka Capital-Journal on Aug. 11, 2006, but is available on CDI’s site at http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3635&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=6&from_page=index.cfm.

[louis-t]

1. "unknowns in the system"

Would that be "known unknowns" or the "unknown unknowns"?

[swag]

2. It might be intentional unknowns, like maybe a homing beacon in the target

missile.

[swag]

3. Okay, here's elaboration from Sampson's article:

The GMD test was shaped to increase the chance of making an intercept. This is not unusual for a program early in its developmental history, but it does limit how well the system could be expected to perform in a more realistic setting. The operators of the system knew roughly when the target missile would be launched. And MDA did admit that the fire control system was built with information projecting what the target missile could do.

Missing from the test were major components required for the system to operate effectively. Foremost was the Sea-based X-band Radar (SBX), needed to help track the targets during their flights. The SBX has been stuck in Hawaii undergoing repairs this year, unable to reach its home port of Adak, Alaska. It was used Friday, but only for the radar’s calibrations and not for the intercept. The SBX may be brought into the system by the next flight intercept attempt, scheduled for the end of this calendar year.

Also absent were the satellite networks required for determining that a launch had occurred and for tracking the missiles in-flight. These systems are over budget and behind schedule, and probably won’t be deployed until the middle of the next decade. For now, MDA has to jury-rig alternatives for the networks, so they cannot be certain how the system will behave with the actual satellite networks.

Perhaps the most crucial flaw of the recent GMD flight test was its target. It was not “threat-representative,” as MDA has claimed, since it did not include countermeasures. These technologies help the threat missile reach its target by deploying items like decoys, so an interceptor won’t know what it should aim at. When the GMD system began its testing years ago, the plan was to commence with basic countermeasures and gradually work to more challenging ones. Instead, MDA has done the opposite and made them more rudimentary over time. The nadir was reached on Friday’s test with zero countermeasures. MDA plans to bring them into the system eventually, but until they do, the claim that the system has proven itself against realistic threats is empty.

[swag]

4. What she doesn't mention, which I found funny, was that the test

was delayed because of weather - too many clouds in the test area.

I'm sure too many clouds would deter the North Koreans from launching an ICBM if they had a reliable ICBM and the desire to launch one. Kim Jong Il would probably wait for better weather so our interceptors would have a fair chance.

[louis-t]

5. Maybe we can get Kim Jong-Il to put homing devices in the missiles.

:eyes: