Experts shoot down Bush missile defense

by MIKE MARTIN, UPI Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON, May 1 (UPI) - "If you build it, they will build" is the overriding theme many experts in the area of missile defense communicate on the construction and implementation of the Bush Administration's new multi-layer missile defense system, which includes both ground based anti-missile systems and a stripped-down
Star Wars-style laser defense.

"In the present diplomatic environment, construction of a nuclear missile defense system by the United States will only antagonize," said Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Makhijani, a Berkeley-educated nuclear physicist, told United Press International such a wide-ranging system, with both space and land-based components, will only encourage other countries - most notably Russia and China - to construct more effective missile systems that employ sophisticated
defense decoys and scale up any attack.

"Such a system as Bush proposes is very vulnerable to countermeasures," Makhijani told UPI from Washington.

Additionally, construction logistics would pose almost insurmountable obstacles.

"For a massive missile attack, the probability of constructing an effective defense system is effectively zero," Makhijani said. "And to test any such a system in the scenario of a massive attack is impossible - all testing must be virtual, so you never know for sure whether or not it will work."

Costs, too, could be astronomical. "We've spent on the order of $100 billion over the past two decades on missile defense systems, and you can see what that has brought us,"
Makhijani said. "Diplomacy, in the context of a disarmament agreement, would be the best approach."

Clay Moltz, professor at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, and assistant director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies whose research interests include North Korean missile programs, told UPI most of the world is reluctant to see the United States develop a broad nuclear missile defense.

"We're the most powerful nation on Earth," Moltz said. "The perception is that we are piling on more power while other countries have signed non-proliferation treaties. They see the U.S. moving away from the treaty approach to a self-centered, America first unilateralist position."

Space-based laser defenses of the sort suggested by the Bush plan are especially problematic, according to Moltz. "In 1999, 162 nations at the U.N. voted against arming space, with only the U.S. and Israel abstaining. Now we risk starting a space arms race that will not only anger other nations - even our allies - but will definitely violate the present Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty."

In January, Donald Rumsfeld unveiled "Rumsfeld Two," a plan Moltz claims made the case for arming space. "Rumsfeld basically stated that we have become so reliant on space-based systems - communications satellites, orbiting stations, and intelligence devices - we now have to be able to defend those systems," Moltz said. "Putting lasers in space is one way to have what Rumsfeld termed 'non-aggressive weapons,' which is the biggest doublespeak I've heard in a long time."

Any space lasers designed to shoot down aggressor missiles can also be used to launch attacks on land or sea, Moltz explained. "This conjures up a whole 'War of the Worlds' scenario - firing lasers on cities and all - that only pisses off and frightens other countries," Moltz said. As a result, the United States will face tremendous pressure if it pursues the Bush goal of lasers in space. "An international norm has developed over the past 40 years against weaponizing space," Moltz said. "The U.S. is in clear danger of violating that norm with this system."

Stanford physicist Dean Wilkening agrees. "Clinton drew the line on space-based weapons because there's no way to reconcile the ABM Treaty with that approach," Wilkening told UPI from Palo Alto. "That treaty aims to limit defense systems. You can always limit naval, ground, or even air defense systems through geography - obviously you can't build or launch a missile defense system on Chinese soil, or in Russian waters.
But in space there are no limits. You'll have satellites over every worrisome country.
There's no geography in space."

Wilkening, the director of science programs for Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation, does believe Bush's missile defense system will work - against smaller enemies with limited capabilities.

"Against Russia and China, who claim to feel most threatened, the missile defense system Bush is pushing would ironically be almost completely ineffective," Wilkening said. "But you can rest assured that China will blame the U.S. for forcing them to increase their offensive posture if we build this defensive system."

Against North Korea or India, who have more limited missile capabilities, the Bush system would be almost 100 percent effective Wilkening said.

The Bush system will work best against small numbers of missiles but it may be susceptible to highly-sophisticated decoys that mimic the heat signatures of warheads and divert anti-missile devices. "But I doubt very much even our most advanced antagonists - Russia and China - will be able to consistently fool the advanced x-band radars and long-wave infrared sensors these laser defenses will come equipped with," Wilkening said.

The laser portion of the new missile defense only recently became viable according to Clay Moltz.

"Before there was no ability to miniaturize the laser's chemical power source so that the laser could be launched," Moltz said. "Now it's been done. And now, because it's been done, the issue of missile defense is about to get very much more divisive."