The Missile Defense Shield dubbed 'Son of Star Wars' following on from the
Space Defence Initiative instigated by Ronald Reagan, and being heavily promoted
and pursued by George W Bush, has so far proved to be a spectacular
failure.Despite being a considerably simpler land, air and sea based system than the
space borne SDI system, success in development has been slow coming, and its
results hardly worthy of public acclaim.
In the latest test, to destroy a dummy warhead fired from Alaska, the
interception missile never even got off the ground. Officials cited an "unknown
anomaly" for the missile's failure to launch.
The resultant damp squib was described as, "a serious set-back for a programme
that had not attempted a flight intercept test for two years", by Philip Coyle
who was the Chief Weapons Tester under Reagan.
Many people agree, and, "It'll never fly", seems to be becoming less of a
sarcastic put-down and more a reasonable assessment of the whole project.
Intended to be fully functional and in service by the end of 2004, the system
is running massively behind schedule and has little to show by way of success.
The project appears to have become an open-ended drain on military spending
with no guaranteed timetable for commissioning and delivery, and with few
promises of effectiveness. Countries who are participating with the intended
deployment of the system outside the US will be wondering if their commitment
doesn't produce more risks for themselves than it removes.
It all looks good on paper - satellites spotting and tracking incoming
missiles, interceptors taking them out before they can reach their intended
targets; truly the stuff of science fiction - but costing over $10 billion in
development each year, the Missile Defense Shield hasn't even achieved the
success levels of the deeply flawed Patriot Missile System. Many are asking,
"if it doesn't work 100%, just what is the point" ? Other than in lining
defence contractor's and shareholder's pockets.
Critics have also pointed out that even if the system does hobble into service
it won't defend against the myriad other lines of attack which are more likely
to be used against America. Designed to protect America against small-scale
ballistic missile attacks from countries such as North Korea, Iran, and other
'rogue states' seen as enemies, it is seen as a costly solution to just one
very particular type of threat.
Less traditional methods of attack are more likely to be used by terrorists
against America as was clearly demonstrated on 9-11; the most severe attack
that America has ever faced on its own soil from outside forces. Analysts
suggest that the US is more likely to suffer similar attacks in the future,
attacks using dirty-nuclear bombs, chemical or biological weapons, and there
are serious concerns being expressed that even full-scale nuclear weapons could
be brought into the ports of America hidden within the holds of oil tankers
where they would be almost impossible to detect. The widespread fear and panic
over the Anthrax scares and activities of the Washington Sniper have shown that
concerted attacks can be fulfilled with very few resources or effort. A
ballistic missile threat may well be one of the USA's least worries.
With American defence spending expected to exceed 500 billion USD in 2005, and
escalating almost yearly,
some are considering that it might actually be cheaper to 'buy off' potential
terrorists and threats than fight them. There are few people who couldn't think
of ways in which such astronomical amounts of money could be spent to actually
make the world a better and safer place within which we live.
Ideology aside, funding a relationship with North Korea rather than posturing
and threatening, and having to risk the possibility of retaliation and the
chance of a global nuclear Armageddon, may be a much more productive course of
action which America could take. A non-existent or believed non-functional
Missile Defense Shield is hardly likely to prove to be much of a deterrent to
North Korea and others who are facing engagement with America, and a working
system may not be either. If America is to risk all in a confrontation with,
what many consider to be, an unstable and nuclear capable regime, then it had
best make sure its citizens are well protected from the fall-out.
Few believe that the Missile Defense Shield can be 100% effective, and consider
such claims to be as over-inflated as the success stories of Patriot Missile
System interceptions were during the Gulf War. Propaganda does not however, as
most people realise, provide actual protection.
An American defence spending budget of 500 billion USD works out at a cost of
over $8,000 to every US family, and they are right to wonder exactly what it
is they get for this expense. Especially when the men and women they ask to put
their lives in harm's way are left without satisfactory armour while facing a
very real enemy which is actively engaged in killing and wounding American
Troops.
There is something wrong when so much money can be spent on something which
doesn't work and may not be needed, when there appears to be a real need that
can't be funded because of lack of money or a failure of commitment.
Money is being poured into a project which offers little at present but a
possibly false hope of security, while those who are actually laying their
lives on the line to really ensure the protection of America are left to get
on with it the best they can.
