The December 15, 2004 headline from the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency press release misleadingly read, "Missile Defense Flight Test Conducted." But the test never happened. The release went on to note that the agency was, in fact, "unable to complete a planned flight test after the interceptor missile experienced an anomaly shortly before it was to be launched."

The $85 million "test" failure was the first test to take place since December 2002. It would have been the most advanced test to date. As the New York Times reported, in addition to launching the target from the Alaska site for the first time, this test was to use the same type of booster rocket that the system will use if it becomes operational. While the target missile was successfully launched, the ground-based interceptor automatically shut down, never even getting off the ground. Ever the optimist, Richard Lehner, Missile Defense Agency spokesman, called the test "a very good training exercise."

During the previous test in 2002, the Pentagon's ground-based missile defense system attempted to intercept a mock warhead, but didn't get very far because the "kill vehicle" failed to separate from its booster. Again, officials were quick to brush it off, saying the malfunction had nothing to do with the advanced missile technology. Lehner pointed out that separating boosters from their payloads is something the U.S. has been doing successfully for 50 years. However, the same problem occurred during an intercept test in July 2000.

To date, in the eight highly scripted intercept tests of the ground-based system, it has failed three times and serious technical challenges remain. In addition to the recent test failures and the inability to test the actual interceptors with the overall system, necessary radar and satellite networks are not complete. The Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency has demonstrated no capability to distinguish realistic decoys from warheads in the weightless environment of space, an essential requirement for the success of the ground- and sea-based elements of the system. A GAO report released in April 2004 notes, “testing in 2003 did little to demonstrate the predicted effectiveness of the system’s capability to defeat ballistic missiles as an integrated system.” The report continues, “none of the components of the defensive capability have yet to be flight tested in their fielded configuration.”

Tests results notwithstanding, missile defense remains a central tenet of President Bush's national security strategy. Early on, Bush directed the Pentagon to begin fielding initial missile defense capabilities in 2004-2005. According to the Pentagon, the initial system will have "limited capability" and will build on the facility at Ft. Greely, Alaska, which was previously designated as a site for testing purposes. Six interceptors have been installed, and another 10 interceptors could be added in 2005. The Pentagon says it will be employing an “evolutionary approach to the development of missile defenses over time,” and it envisions a layered system comprising ground-based and sea-based interceptors alongside upgraded versions of the short-range Patriot missile.

Even before the added spending proposed by the Bush administration is taken into account, missile defense is already one of the most expensive military programs in history. The Pentagon has spent close to $100 billion on missile defense projects since President Reagan’s 1983 “Star Wars” speech. The last budget submitted by the Clinton administration allocated $4.8 billion for missile defense. President Bush has requested $10.2 billion for the project in his 2005 fiscal year budget, and another $50 billion is expected to be spent over the next five years to continue development and testing of ballistic missile defense system. Despite Bush’s more than 100% increase in funding for missile defense, the resulting multilayered system is no more workable than previous systems.

President Bush has said that the "gravest danger of all" facing the United States is a hostile state or terrorist group armed with weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. If he were serious about defending the country from this threat, he would start by immediately increasing funds to safeguard, secure, or destroy the vast amounts of nuclear weapons and materials in Russia, which could be stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nations. Total current funding for all nonproliferation programs—international and national—is less than $2 billion. The main focus of Washington's energy and resources should be on preventive measures, which are far more effective at reducing the threat of nuclear war than any pie-in-the-sky defensive schemes.

Michelle Ciarrocca is a Senior Research Associate at the World Policy Institute in New York, she's the author of Missile Defense All Over Again, Foreign Policy In Focus -- Policy Brief, October 2004. http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol9/v9n04missdef.html

###