• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Experts Confident in Ballistic Missile Defense Testing Program

    Two experts in missile defense—Lieutenant General Henry A. Obering III (ret.), former director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), and Rebeccah Heinrichs, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies—wrote a letter countering Yousaf Butt’s claim that the ballistic missile defense testing program comprises of “essentially rigged tests, where the intercept team knew the precise timing and trajectory of the incoming missile.”

    Take an expert’s word for it: General Obering oversaw as many as six Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) tests during his tenure as a director of the MDA. He also oversaw more than 10 Aegis sea-based missile defense tests and other Theatre High Altitude Area Defense tests. He knows these tests inside out on both the classified and the unclassified sides.

    In the real world, say Obering and Heinrichs, missile defense crews would have some information about the timing of the enemy attack, “due to the physics of ballistic missiles [and] the trajectory of the target.” The locations of Iran and North Korea are not secret, and it is likely that the U.S. intelligence community would pick up signs of preparations for a launch. Recent GMD tests proved that the kill vehicle on the interceptor was able to lock in the warhead against challenging background and amid decoys, countermeasures, and debris. Contrary to Butt’s assertions, it would not be easy for U.S. enemies to actually launch decoys.

    It is important not to measure a success or a failure of a missile defense test according to whether the intercept occurred or not. It is far more important to determine whether the U.S. learned something new from the test and advanced ballistic missile defense technology. In that regard, the U.S. missile defense engineering community values “failed” tests as much as or even more than “successful” ones, because it tends to learn more from those tests that “go wrong” in some way. Once U.S. scientists know what went wrong, they can fix it.

    In addition, the criterion of cost effectiveness for missile defenses has been defined too narrowly in the U.S., because it is important to consider not only the value of on the incoming missile against the interceptor but also the value of the defended area.


    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    One Response to Experts Confident in Ballistic Missile Defense Testing Program

    1. fly eye says:

      Man !!! I just love the mighty USA !!!!!!!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.