United States national missile defense

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JAnDbot (talk | contribs) at 09:01, 15 September 2008 (robot Modifying: pl:Tarcza antyrakietowa). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is about systems to shield an entire country. For the current US missile defense system, see Ground-Based Midcourse Defense.
A payload launch vehicle carrying a prototype exoatmospheric kill vehicle is launched from Meck Island at the Kwajalein Missile Range on December 3, 2001, for an intercept of a ballistic missile target over the central Pacific Ocean.

National missile defense (NMD) as a generic term is a type of missile defense: a military strategy and associated systems to shield an entire country against incoming Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). The missiles could be intercepted by other missiles, or possibly by lasers. They could be intercepted near the launch point (boost phase), during flight through space (mid-course phase), or during atmospheric descent (terminal phase).

The term "national missile defense" has several meanings:

  • Most common, but now deprecated: U.S. National Missile Defense, the limited ground-based nationwide antimissile system in development since the 1990s. In 2002 this system was renamed to Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD), to differentiate it from other missile defense programs, such as space-based, sea-based, laser, or high-altitude intercept programs. As of 2006, this system is operational with limited capability. It is designed to intercept a small number of nuclear-armed ICBMs in the mid-course phase, using interceptor missiles launched from Alaska. They use non-nuclear kinetic warheads.
  • Current definition: The overall limited U.S. nationwide antimissile program in development since the 1990s. After the renaming in 2002, the term now refers to the entire program, not just the ground-based interceptors and associated facilities. Other elements yet to be integrated into NMD may include sea-based, space-based, laser, and high altitude missile systems. The NMD program is limited in scope and designed to counter a relatively small ICBM attack from a less sophisticated adversary. Unlike the earlier Strategic Defense Initiative program, it is not designed to be a robust shield against a large attack from a technically sophisticated adversary. This article focuses mainly on this system and a brief history of earlier systems which led to it.
  • Any national ICBM defense by any country, past or present. The U.S. Sentinel program was a planned national missile defense during the 1960s, but was never deployed. Elements of Sentinel were briefly deployed as the Safeguard Program, but it wasn't national in scope. The Russian A-135 anti-ballistic missile system is currently operational around Moscow, but it also isn't national in scope.
  • Any national missile defense (against any missile type) by any country. Israel currently has a national missile defense against short and medium-range missiles using their Arrow missile system.

The role of defense against nuclear missiles has been a heated military and political topic for several decades. (See also nuclear strategy, Missile Defense Agency, and anti-ballistic missile.)

History of national missile defense systems

In the late 1950s, the Nike-Zeus program investigated the use of Nike nuclear missiles as interceptors against Soviet ICBMs. A Nike warhead would be detonated at high altitudes (over 100 km /60 statute miles) above the polar regions in the near vicinity of an incoming Soviet missile. While rocket technology offered some hope of a solution, the problem of how to quickly identify and track incoming missiles proved intractable, especially in light of easily envisioned countermeasures such as decoys and chaff. The Nike-Zeus project was canceled in 1961.

Project Defender

The Nike-Zeus use of nuclear warheads was necessary given the available missile technology. However, it had significant technical limitations such as blinding defensive radars to subsequent missiles. Also, exploding nuclear warheads over friendly territory (albeit in space) was not ideal. In the 1960s Project Defender and the Ballistic Missile Boost Intercept (BAMBI) concept replaced land-launched Nike missiles with missiles to be launched from satellite platforms orbiting directly above the USSR. Instead of nuclear warheads, the BAMBI missiles would deploy huge wire meshes designed to disable Soviet ICBMs in their early launch phase (the "boost phase"). No solution to the problem of how to protect the proposed satellite platforms against attack was found, however, and the program was canceled in 1968.

The Sentinel Program

In 1963, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara announced the Sentinel Program, providing a defense against attack for most of the continental United States. The system consisted of a long range Spartan missile, the short range Sprint missile, and associated radar and computer system. However, U.S. military and political strategists recognized several problems with the system:

  • Deployment of even a limited defensive ABM system might invite a preemptive nuclear attack before it could be implemented
  • Deploying ABM systems would likely invite another expensive arms race for defensive systems, in addition to maintaining existing offensive expenditures
  • Then-current technology did not permit a thorough defense against a sophisticated attack
  • Defended coverage area was very limited due to the short range of the missiles used
  • Use of nuclear warheads on antimissile interceptors would degrade capability of defensive radar, thus possibly rendering defense ineffective after the first few intercepts
  • Political and public concern about detonating defensive nuclear warheads over friendly territory
  • An ICBM defense could jeopardize the Mutual Assured Destruction concept, thus being a destabilizing influence

The Safeguard Program

The Institute of Heraldry approved the shoulder sleeve insignia for Safeguard.
Main article: Safeguard Program

In 1967 McNamara announced that the U.S. would instead be installing the Safeguard, a scaled-down version of Sentinel designed to defend U.S. cities from a "limited" attack such as those from the People's Republic of China.[1] Growing public pressure led to a re-purposing of the system, which was then dedicated to protecting the U.S. missile fields from attack, guaranteeing their ability to mount a retaliatory strike. Thus, instead of protecting U.S. citizens, Safeguard now allowed attack on enemy citizens. Safeguard used the same Spartan and Sprint missiles and the same radar technology as Sentinel. Safeguard solved some problems of Sentinel:

  • Less expensive to develop due to limited geographic coverage and fewer required missiles
  • Avoided public concern of defensive nuclear warheads detonated nearby
  • Provided better intercept probability due to coverage by short range Sprint missile, which was unable to cover the entire defended area under Sentinel.

However Safeguard still retained several of the previously-listed political and military problems.

ABM treaty

These above issues drove the U.S. and USSR to sign the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. Under the ABM treaty and a 1974 revision, each country was allowed to deploy a single ABM system with only 100 interceptors to protect a single target. The Soviets deployed a system named A-35 using a missile code-named Galosh, designed to protect Moscow. The U.S. deployed Safeguard to defend ballistic missile sites at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota, in 1975. The U.S. Safeguard system was only briefly operational. The Russian system (now called A-135) has been improved and is still active around Moscow.

In December, 1999, the U.N. General Assembly endorsed a resolution aimed at pressing the United States to abandon plans to build an antimissile defense. Voting against the draft, together with the United States, were Albania, Israel and Micronesia. The members of the 15-nation European Union abstained, except for France and Ireland, which voted for the resolution. It called for continued efforts to strengthen and preserve the treaty.[2] On December 15, 2001, the U.S. withdrew from the ABM treaty.

Homing Overlay Experiment

Homing Overlay Experiment open web.

Given concerns about the previous programs using nuclear tipped interceptors, in the 1980s the U.S. Army began studies about the feasibility of hit-to-kill vehicles, where an interceptor missile would destroy an incoming ballistic missile just by colliding with it head-on.

The first program, which actually tested a hit-to-kill missile interceptor, was the Army's HOE (Homing Overlay Experiment) which used a Kinetic Kill Vehicle (KKV) . The KKV was equipped with an infrared seeker, guidance electronics and a propulsion system. Once in space, the KKV could extend a folded structure similar to an umbrella skeleton of 4 m (13 ft) diameter to enhance its effective cross section. This device would destroy the ICBM reentry vehicle on collision. After test failures with the first three flight tests, the fourth and final test on 10 June 1984 was successful, intercepting the Minuteman RV with a closing speed of about 6.1 km/s at an altitude of more than 160 km.

The Strategic Defense Initiative

SDI insignia.
Main article: Strategic Defense Initiative

On March 23, 1983 President Reagan announced a new national missile defense program formally called the Strategic Defense Initiative but soon nicknamed "Star Wars" by detractors. President Reagan's stated goal was not just to protect the U.S. and its allies, but to also provide the completed system to the USSR, thus ending the threat of nuclear war for all parties. SDI was technically very ambitious and economically very expensive. It would have included many space-based laser battle stations and nuclear-pumped X-ray laser satellites designed to intercept hostile ICBMs in space, along with very sophisticated command and control systems. Unlike the previous Sentinel program, the goal was to totally defend against a robust, all out nuclear attack by the USSR.

A partisan debate ensued in Congress, with Democrats questioning the feasibility and strategic wisdom of such a program, while Republicans talked about its strategic necessity and provided a number of technical experts who argued that it was in fact feasible (including Manhattan Project physicist Edward Teller). Advocates of SDI prevailed and funding was initiated in fiscal year 1984. The motivation behind this effort largely collapsed with the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.

Current NMD program

The logo of the Missile Defense division of the U.S. National Guard

In the 1990s and early 21st century, the stated mission of NMD has changed to the more modest goal of preventing the United States from being subject to nuclear blackmail or nuclear terrorism by a so-called rogue state. The feasibility of this more limited goal remains somewhat controversial. Under President Clinton some testing continued but the project was not given much funding. Some have considered this surprising,[weasel words] in light of Clinton's supportive remarks on 5 September 2000. He said that "such a system, if it worked properly, could give us an extra dimension of insurance in a world where proliferation has complicated the task of preserving peace."

The current NMD system consists primarily of ground based interceptor missiles and radar in Alaska which would intercept incoming warheads in space. A limited number of interceptor missiles (about 10) are operational as of 2006. These would possibly be later augmented by mid-course SM-4 interceptors fired from Navy ships and by boost-phase interception by the Boeing YAL-1.

NMD deployment is planned in three phases. The first phase is called Capability 1 (C1), and was originally designed to counter a limited threat from up to about five warheads with either simple or no countermeasures. More recently this phase has been upgraded to include the deployment of up to 100 interceptors and would be aimed at countering tens of warheads. This would require radar upgrades. Since North Korea is perceived to be the earliest missile threat, the interceptors and radar would be deployed in Alaska.

The second phase is called C2 and designed to counter an attack by warheads with more complex countermeasures. It would deploy additional radars and more interceptors, plus a missile-tracking satellite system. The C3 phase is supposed to counter threats consisting of many complex warheads. It would deploy additional radars as well as additional interceptors, including some at a second site, bringing the total to 200 or more. Although the C3 system is the current final deployment goal, the system design permits further expansion and upgrades beyond the C3 level. A Pentagon study concluded that the NMD system could be upgraded by integrating the hundreds of interceptors to be deployed as part of the ship-based Navy Theater Wide missile defense system. These interceptors would be integrated into the sensor infrastructure of the NMD system.

Recent developments

Missile Defense Agency logo.

On 14 October 2002, a ground based interceptor launched from the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Site destroyed a mock warhead 225 km above the Pacific. The test included three decoy balloons.[3]

On 16 December 2002 President George W. Bush signed National Security Presidential Directive 23[4] which outlined a plan to begin deployment of operational ballistic missile defense systems by 2004. The following day the U.S. formally requested from the UK and Denmark use of facilities in Fylingdales, England, and Thule, Greenland, respectively, as a part of the NMD program. The projected cost of the program for the years 2004 to 2009 will be $53 billion, making it the largest single line in The Pentagon's budget.

Since 2002, the US has been in talks with Poland and other European countries over the possibility of setting up a European base to intercept long-range missiles. A site similar to the US base in Alaska would help protect the US and Europe from missiles fired from the Middle East or North Africa. Poland's prime minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz said in November 2005 he wanted to open up the public debate on whether Poland should host such a base.[5]

In 2002, NMD was changed to Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD), to differentiate it from other missile defense programs, such as space-based, sea-based, and defense targeting the boost phase and the reentry phase (see flight phases).

On 22 July 2004, the first ground-based interceptor was deployed at Ft. Greely, Alaska (63°57′14″N 145°44′06″W / 63.954°N 145.735°W / 63.954; -145.735). By the end of 2004, a total of six had been deployed at Ft. Greely and another two at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Two additional were installed at Ft. Greely in 2005. The system will provide "rudimentary" protection.

On 15 December 2004, an interceptor test in the Marshall Islands failed when the launch was aborted due to an "unknown anomaly" in the interceptor, 16 minutes after launch of the target from Kodiak Island, Alaska.

"I don't think that the goal was ever that we would declare it was operational. I think the goal was that there would be an operational capability by the end of 2004," Pentagon representative Larry DiRita said on 2005-01-13 at a Pentagon press conference. However, the problem is and was funding. "There has been some expectation that there will be some point at which it is operational and not something else these expectations are not unknown, if Congress pours more attention and funding to this system, it can be operational relatively quick."

On 18 January 2005, the Commander, United States Strategic Command issued direction to establish the Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense. JFCC IMD, once activated, will develop desired characteristics and capabilities for global missile defense operations and support for missile defense.

On 14 February, 2005, another interceptor test failed due to a malfunction with the ground support equipment at the test range on Kwajalein Island, not with the interceptor missile itself.[6]

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System logo.

On 24 February 2005, the Missile Defense Agency, testing the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, successfully intercepted a mock enemy missile. This was the first test of an operationally configured RIM-161 Standard missile 3 (SM-3) interceptor and the fifth successful test intercept using this system. On 10 November 2005, the USS Lake Erie detected, tracked, and destroyed a mock two-stage ballistic missile within two minutes of the ballistic missile launch.[7]

On 1 September 2006, the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System was successfully tested. An interceptor was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base to hit a target missile launched from Alaska, with ground support provided by a crew at Colorado Springs. This test was described by Missile Defense Agency director Lieutenant General Trey Obering as "about as close as we can come to an end-to-end test of our long-range missile defense system."[8] The target missile carried no decoys or other countermeasures.[9]

Deployment of the Sea-based X-band Radar system is presently underway.[10]

On 24 February 2007, The Economist reported that the United States ambassador to NATO, Victoria Nuland, had written to her fellow envoys to advise them regarding the various options for missile-defense sites in Europe. She also confirmed that “The United States has also been discussing with the UK further potential contributions to the system.”[11]

In February 2007, the US started formal negotiations with Poland (in April 2007 57% of Poles opposed the plan)[12] and Czech Republic concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System.[13] According to press reports the government of the Czech Republic agreed (while 67% Czechs disagree and only about 15% support it[14]) to host a missile defense radar on its territory while a base of missile interceptors is supposed to be built in Poland. The objective is reportedly to protect most of Europe from long-range missile strikes from Iran.[15] The ballistic missile-defence system currently being considered is primarily designed to protect United States.[16] More than 130,000 Czechs signed petition for referendum about the base, which is by far the largest citizen initiative (Ne základnám - No to Bases)[17] since the Velvet Revolution.[18]

On February 23, 2008, the United States successfully shot down a malfunctioning American spy satellite.

The 54°33′13″N 16°37′13″E / 54.553748°N 16.620255°E / 54.553748; 16.620255 Ustka-Wicko base of the Polish Army is mentioned as a possible site of US missile interceptors. Russia objects; its suspension of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe may be related.

Russia threatened to place short-range nuclear missiles on the Russia’s border with NATO if the United States refuses to abandon plans to deploy 10 interceptor missiles and a radar in Poland and the Czech Republic.[19][20] In April 2007, Putin warned of a new Cold War if the Americans deployed the shield in Central Europe.[21] Putin also said that Russia is prepared to abandon its obligations under a Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987 with the United States.[22]

John McCain is a strong supporter of missile defense.[23] In October 2007, McCain said: "And the first thing I would do is make sure that we have a missile defense system in place in Czechoslovakia [sic] and Poland, and I don't care what his [Putin's] objections are to it."[24]

Barack Obama said he supported shifting federal resources away from an “unproven missile defense system” to proven technologies.[25] “I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems,” Obama said.[26][27]

On July 4, 2008, Poland did not agree on the United States conditions and installation of anti-ballistic missile on its territory.[28]

On July 8, 2008, The Russian Foreign Ministry stated that if the missile defense system is okayed, "we will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods."[29] On July 8, 2008 US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg signed in Prague the "Agreement Between the United States and the Czech Republic on Establishing a United States Ballistic Missile Defense Radar Site in the Czech Republic".[30]

On August 14, 2008, The United States of America and Poland announced a deal to implement the missile defense system in Polish territory, with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic. The Russians responded by saying such action "cannot go unpunished."[31] "The fact that this was signed in a period of very difficult crisis in the relations between Russia and the United States over the situation in Georgia shows that, of course, the missile defense system will be deployed not against Iran but against the strategic potential of Russia," Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's NATO envoy, said.[32][33]

Russia warned Poland that it is exposing itself to attack — even a nuclear one —by accepting a U.S. missile interceptor base on its soil. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn the deputy chief of staff of Russia's armed forces warned Poland, that Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent.[34]

On August 20 2008, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Poland’s Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski signed in Warsaw the "Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Poland Concerning the Deployment of Ground-Based Ballistic Missile Defense Interceptors in the Territory of the Republic of Poland".[35] [36]

See also Anti-ballistic missile#European front.

Technical criticism

There has been controversy among experts about whether it is technically feasible to build an effective missile defense system and, in particular, if the ground-based midcourse NMD will work.[37]

An April 2000 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that “[a]ny country capable of deploying a long-range missile would also be able to deploy countermeasures that would defeat the planned NMD system.” Countermeasures studied in detail were bomblets containing biological or chemical agents, aluminized balloons to serve as decoys and to disguise warheads, and cooling warheads to reduce the kill vehicle’s ability to detect them.[38][39]

In April 2004, a General Accounting Office report concluded that “MDA does not explain some critical assumptions—such as an enemy’s type and number of decoys—underlying its performance Goals.” It recommended that “DOD carry out independent, operationally realistic testing of each block being fielded” but DOD responded that “formal operational testing is not required before entry into full-rate production.”[40]

Proponents did not suggest how to discriminate between empty and warhead-enclosing balloons, for instance, but said that these “simple” countermeasures are actually hard to implement, and that defense technology is rapidly advancing to defeat them.[41] The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) said decoy discrimination techniques were classified, and emphasized its intention to provide future boost and terminal defense to diminish the importance of midcourse decoys.[42] In summer 2002 MDA ceased providing detailed intercept information and declined to answer technical questions about decoys on grounds of national security.[43]

A July 2003 study by the American Physical Society (APS) focused on the feasibility of intercepting missiles in the boost phase, which the current NMD system does not yet attempt.[44]

The study found it might be possible to develop a limited system capable of destroying a liquid-fuel propelled ICBM during the boost phase. This system could also possibly destroy some solid-propellant missiles from Iran, but not those from North Korea, because of differences in the boost time and range to target. However, there is a trend toward using solid-fueled ICBMs which are harder to intercept during boost phase.

Using orbital launchers to provide a reliable boost-phase defense against solid fuel missiles from Iran or North Korea was found to require at least 1,600 interceptors in orbit. Intercepting liquid-fueled missiles would require 700 interceptors. Using two or more interceptors per target would require many more orbital launchers.

The only boost phase systems the U.S. contemplates for near term use are the Airborne laser (ABL) and Kinetic Energy Interceptors. The study found the ABL possibly capable of intercepting missiles if within 300 km for solid fuel missiles or 600 km for liquid fuel missiles.[45]

While the APS report did not address the current U.S. mid-course NMD system, it concluded that were the U.S. in the future to develop a boost-phase ABM defense, there could be significant technical problems limiting effectiveness.

See also the article on anti-ballistic missiles for further discussion on the feasibility of NMD-like systems.

See also

References

  1. ^ Aerospace Power Journal, Fall 2001 Shades of Sentinel?, The Decision to Deploy Sentinel
  2. ^ Reuters via Space.com. U.N. Opposes U.S. Plan for Antimissile Defense. December 2, 1999.
  3. ^ US Department of Defense. MISSILE INTERCEPT TEST SUCCESSFUL. October 14, 2002.
  4. ^ Federation of American Scientists. National Security Presidential Directive 23. December 16, 2002.
  5. ^ BBC. US considers Polish missile base. November 17, 2005
  6. ^ Missile Defense Agency. Missile Defense Flight Test Conducted. (PDF).February 14, 2005.
  7. ^ Missile Defense Agency.Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Flight Test Successful. (PDF). February 24, 2005.
  8. ^ US Department of Defense. DoD News Briefing with Lt. Gen. Obering from the Pentagon. September 1, 2006.
  9. ^ Center for Defense Information Flight Tests for Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) System, June 18, 2007 . (PDF).
  10. ^ UPI via Space Daily. Analysis: Missile Defense Semantics. January 17, 2005.
  11. ^ "Missile defence systems Bombs bursting in air". The Economist (24 February 2007). 2007. Retrieved 2007-02-24. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  12. ^ U.S. Might Negotiate on Missile Defense, washingtonpost.com
  13. ^ Europe diary: Missile defence, BBC News
  14. ^ Citizens on U.S. Anti-Missile Radar Base in Czech Republic[1]
  15. ^ Center for Security Studies (CSS), ETH Zurich "US Missile Defense: A Strategic Challenge for Europe", Daniel Möckli, CSS Analyses in Security Policy no. 12, April 2007
  16. ^ Missile Defense: Avoiding a Crisis in Europe
  17. ^ Ne základnám | Více jak 130 000 podpisů pro referendum
  18. ^ US and ČR sign missile defense treaty in Prague, Czechnews
  19. ^ Russia piles pressure on EU over missile shield, Telegraph
  20. ^ China, Russia sign nuclear deal, condemn US missile defense plans, International Herald Tribune
  21. ^ Russia threatening new cold war over missile defence, The Guardian
  22. ^ U.S., Russia no closer on missile defense, USATODAY.com
  23. ^ John McCain 2008 - Effective Missile Defense
  24. ^ Republican Debate Offers Internal Jabs, Pack Attack on Hillary Clinton, FOXNews.com
  25. ^ Obama's Missile Defenses - Early Warning
  26. ^ Obama's Defense Plan Leaves Us Vulnerable, Newsmax.com
  27. ^ Poland Avoids Missile Defense Topic With Obama, CBS News
  28. ^ Polska nie zgadza się na instalację tarczy
  29. ^ FOXNews.com - Russia Warns of Military Response If U.S.-Czech Missile Defense Agreement Approved - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News
  30. ^ Ballistic Missile Defense Agreement Between the United States and the Czech Republic
  31. ^ Russia Lashes Out on Missile Deal, The New York Times, August 15, 2008
  32. ^ Russia angry over US missile shield, Al Jazeera English, August 15, 2008
  33. ^ Missile defense backers now cite Russia threat
  34. ^ Will Russia Attack Poland Next? Time, August 15 2008
  35. ^ Ballistic Missile Defense Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Poland
  36. ^ Agreement regarding the placement in Poland of anti-ballistic defensive missile interceptors - full text
  37. ^ Scientists, critics say projected US missile defense system cannot work, International Herald Tribune
  38. ^ Union of Concerned Scientists/MIT Security Studies Program. Countermeasures: A Technical Evaluation of the Operational Effectiveness of the Planned U.S. National Missile Defense System(Executive Summary and full text)(PDF). UCS-MIT Study, A.M. Sessler (Chair of the Study Group), J.M. Cornwall, R. Dietz, S.A. Fetter, S. Frankel, R.L. Garwin, K. Gottfried, L. Gronlund, G.N. Lewis, T.A. Postol, and D.C. Wright, April 2000.
  39. ^ Don't Overestimate NMD: Common Countermeasures Can Slip By Shield, Richard Garwin, Lisbeth Gronlund and George Lewis, Defense News, July 10, 2000, p.15
  40. ^ General Accounting Office report GAO-04-409 Missile Defense: Actions are Needed to Enhance Testing and Accountability(PDF)
  41. ^ Countermeasure Doubletalk / UCS Overstates Ease of Defeating Missile Defense Scott McMahon, Stanley Orman, and Richard Speier, Defense News, June 19, 2000 p.19.
  42. ^ Missile Defense Agency Statement of Lieutenant General Ronald T. Kadish, USAF Director, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization Before the House Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations Committee on Government Reform, September 8, 2000 "NMD Counter Countermeasures" section
  43. ^ Center for Defense Information IFT-9: A Questionable Success For Missile Defense. Weekly Defense Monitor, Volume 6, Issue #36 October 24, 2002.
  44. ^ American Physical Society.Report of the American Physical Society Study Group on Boost-Phase Intercept System for National Missile Defense: Scientific and Technical Issues, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, S1 2004. David K. Barton, Roger Falcone, Daniel Kleppner, Frederick K. Lamb, Ming K. Lau, Harvey L. Lynch, David Moncton, David Montague, David E. Mosher, William Priedhorsky, Maury Tigner, and David R. Vaughan.
  45. ^ Physics Today published by the American Physical Society. Boost-Phase Defense Against Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. January 2004.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_national_missile_defense&oldid=238543435"