Missile Defense: Unready for the Real World
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
In their July 6 op-ed, "Defense for a Real Threat," Trey Obering and Eric Edelman were incorrect about the technical worthiness of the proposed U.S. missile defense system in Europe.
I was one of 20 scientists and engineers who recently sent a letter to President Obama urging him not to deploy the system because it is unproven and would not defend against a real missile attack. I and many of the other signatories have long advised the government on military issues.
The interceptors slated for the European-based system would be modified versions of missiles currently sited in Alaska and California that have been tested only under highly scripted conditions against mock targets without realistic countermeasures.
Numerous technical analyses have shown that any country that could launch a long-range missile also could add decoys and other countermeasures that would defeat such a defense.
Missile defenses should be held to the same standard as any other weapons system. They should not be deployed until they are proven effective.
RICHARD L. GARWIN
Scarsdale, N.Y.
The writer is a member of the board of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
