Guest Posting By Bettina H. Chavanne, Pentagon Reporter, Aviation Week & Space Technology

| | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)
If you believe, as I do, that missile defense can and should be cut back, you buy into Defense Secretary Robert Gates' premise that the mid-course and terminal phases are well-developed and working well and that research and development still needs to be done to the boost phase element. The Patriot, Standard Missile-3 and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system are not only fully matured, but are sufficient for what we need.

Let's look at what hasn't worked in the past. The failures are legion: the Nike-Zeus system (failed because of crummy rardar and immature computer technologies), the Ballistic Missile Boost Intercept system (another boost phase system with immature technology), the technically immature Safeguard system, and let's not forget President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI. There were certainly elements of SDI that worked as far as advancing research in missile defense, but more often than not - the components of SDI failed spectacularly: Space-Based Interceptor program, Brilliant Pebbles, Brilliant Eyes.

To me, the question really isn't whether we should or shouldn't fund missile defense, it's why aren't we funding more R&D in the areas we need to develop to finally get a mature, effective program off the ground? That's why I agree with Gates' cuts. The Pentagon has allowed too many programs to pass milestones before they are technologically mature. Gates isn't willing to let that happen with missile defense.

(For excellent background on the history and future of missile defense, look up the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, the Space Relationship and the 21st Century. Their 2009 report is very thorough and informative.)

Bettina H. Chavanne, Pentagon Reporter, Aviation Week & Space Technology, blogging at: www.aviationweek.com/ares

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Guest Posting By Bettina H. Chavanne, Pentagon Reporter, Aviation Week & Space Technology.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.rightwinggranny.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/696

1 Comments

I agree with the your comments. I am in favor of cutting inefficient and ineffective programs. HOWEVER ... I need some assurance the dollars will continue to be spent on effective defense programs and not be diverted to ineffective or politically correct programs. We need to have strong defense capabilities - many bad guys out there only respect strength and potential destructive power - they do not respect mister nice guy. We need to protect our interests from the bad guys and we need to protect and arm our own forces!

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Granny G published on April 7, 2009 3:35 PM.

Good News I Hadn't Heard Until Today was the previous entry in this blog.

I Honestly Don't Know What To Think Of This is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.