Snake Oil and Missile Defense

by Alexandra Bell and Ben Loehrke of the Ploughshares Fund

Missile defense is on the chopping block.  Carried through the Bush years by obsessive theology and highly staged tests, the new administration is now insisting that the weapons prove their effectiveness, affordability and necessity.

This level of accountability is apparently unacceptable to the far-right. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA), the minority whips in their respective bodies, advocated missile defense this week in Politico, saying, “Our systems have shown through numerous tests that they work – that is not in doubt.”

This statement is grossly untrue, and they know it. Long-range ballistic missile defense DOES NOT work yet.  Period.  Anyone asserting that our current ballistic missile defense systems are operational may have some snake oil to sell you, as well. Someday it might, but we have a long way to go.

Long-range ballistic missile defense is still in the development phase and has not dealt with realistic testing scenarios that involve countermeasures. The previous administration worked at a frenzied pace to make sure European missile defense bases were constructed, even though the system is not yet functional.

It is part of a charade called spiral development. The idea is that a system is deployed and eventually the technical details will work themselves out.  You have never heard of spiral development?  That is probably because it is the Ponzi Scheme of weapons development.   The real reason that the bases were put on the fast track is that once in place, future administrations would have difficulty in scaling back program.  Bases on the ground equals a steady stream of funding for missile defense Madoffs.

Here is the chasm of doubt that Mr. Cantor and Mr. Kyl papered-over. Independent missile defense experts, scientists, and the Pentagon’s own test director have all drawn similar conclusions on the current efforts:

• Charles McQueary, the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, reported in the annual assessment of missile defense systems that “Although the MDA has plans to test over a wider range of intercept conditions and threat battlespace, until this is accomplished, there will be insufficient data to accredit the models and simulations needed to assess GMD operational effectiveness.”  This is Pentagonese for saying we don’t have any idea if any of this works.
   
• MIT Professor and missile defense expert Ted Postol is more direct.  He says that missile defense’s “performance is unproven, it requires unending additional resources, and it faces problems that cannot be solved with existing science.”
   
• David Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists agrees, writing: “The overall system has no demonstrated capability: The U.S. missile defense system is still in early stages of development, and has had no operational tests and no tests in a realistic attack scenario… The intercepts achieved in the tests so far say nothing about the system’s effectiveness under real-world conditions.”
   
• Former DoD director of operation testing, Philip Coyle, told Congress during testimony, “U.S. missile defenses have not demonstrated effectiveness to defend Europe or the U.S. under realistic operational conditions.  U.S. missile defenses lack the ability to deal with decoys and countermeasures, lack demonstrated effectiveness under realistic operational conditions, and lack the ability to handle attacks involving multiple missiles.”

Mr. Kyl and Mr. Cantor cite possible threats from North Korea and Iran as the reason to push forward with missile defense funding.  Though neither nation has demonstrated a grasp of long-range ballistic missile technology, no one denies that the recent provocative actions of these countries are concerning.   However, the real danger does not come from delaying deployment of proposed missile systems in Europe; it comes from allowing the American people to believe that there is a tested, certified and reliable system in place protecting them.

Joe Cirincione, president of Ploughshares Fund, warns that the same people that insisted Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in 2003 are now pushing missile defense technology that does not work against a threat that does not exist.  It is now time that they come clean with the American people and admit that this is a system that they hope will work, but it does not, in fact, work yet. 

The Obama Administration and Congress should continue to support research and development on missile defense, but should demand realistic testing scenarios, greater transparency and independent reviews.  Most importantly, we should be working with Russia and all of our allies to make sure there are no Iranian or North Korean missiles on the ground, much less in the air.

Alexandra Bell is Research Associate and Assistant to the President at Ploughshares Fund. Ben Loehrke is a research assistant with Ploughshares Fund.