Missile Defense Test
A U.S. interceptor missile lifts
off from Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean in December 2001 in a test of a
missile defense system. The interceptor successfully destroyed a Minuteman II
missile in space, but officials with the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization said the test was not carried out under realistic conditions.
Defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles has long been controversial
because of its costs, doubts about its reliability, and its effect on arms
control agreements.
Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), United States
military research program for developing an antiballistic missile (ABM) defense
system, first proposed by President Ronald Reagan in March 1983. The Reagan
administration vigorously sought acceptance of SDI by the United States and its
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies. As initially described, the
system would provide total U.S. protection against nuclear attack. The concept
of SDI marked a sharp break with the nuclear strategy that had been followed
since the development of the armaments race. This strategy was based on the
concept of deterrence through the threat of retaliation (see Arms
Control). More specifically, the SDI system would have contravened the ABM
Treaty of 1972 (see Strategic Arms Limitation Talks). For this reason
and others, the SDI proposal was attacked as a further escalation of the
armaments race.
Many experts believed the system was impractical. With
the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the signing of the START I and II
treaties, and the election in 1992 of Bill Clinton as president, the SDI, like
many other weapons programs, was given a lower budgetary priority. In 1993 U.S.
secretary of defense Les Aspin announced the abandonment of SDI and the establishment
of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) to oversee a less costly
program known as National Missile Defense that would make use of ground-based
antimissile systems.
The SDI system was originally planned to provide a
layered defense employing advanced weapons technologies, several of which were
only in a preliminary research stage. The goal was to intercept incoming
missiles in midcourse, high above the earth. The weapons required included
space- and ground-based nuclear X-ray lasers, subatomic particle beams, and
computer-guided projectiles fired by electromagnetic rail guns—all under the
central control of a supercomputer system. (The space-based weapons and laser
aspects of the system gained it the media name “Star Wars,” after the popular
1977 science-fiction film.) Supporting these weapons would have been a network
of space-based sensors and specialized mirrors for directing the laser beams
toward targets. Some of these weapons were in development, but
others—particularly the laser systems and the supercomputer control—were not
certain to be attainable.
The total cost of such a system was estimated at
between $100 billion and $1 trillion. Actual expenditures for SDI amounted to
about $30 billion. The initial annual budget for BMDO was $3.8 billion.
Cost was not the only controversial issue surrounding
SDI. Critics of SDI, including several former government officials, leading
scientists, and some NATO members, maintained that the system—even if it had
proved workable—could have been outwitted by an enemy in many ways. Also, other
nations feared that the SDI system could have been used offensively.
The administration of President George W. Bush gave
missile defense a high priority when Bush took office in January 2001. The September
11 terrorist attacks that year gave further impetus to a missile defense
system. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said such a system was needed to
protect the United States from possible attacks by terrorist groups or rogue
states. In 2002 the Bush administration withdrew from the ABM Treaty so that it
could pursue more vigorous testing of a missile defense program. Criticism of a
missile defense system persisted. The Union of Concerned Scientists said the
technology did not yet exist to deploy a reliable missile defense system. The
group also argued that countermeasures could easily be taken against such a
defense system. Other critics noted that terrorists would be unlikely to use
missiles and could conceal nuclear weapons, if they obtained them, in a ship or
van.
No comments:
Post a Comment