New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

wrcooper - 12:23pm Aug 7, 2002 EST (#3543 of 3545)

CONTINUED

Finding 9 ? Jobs and Income Generated by Missile Defense Programs Will Be Highly Concentrated: Despite contractor claims of the potential economic stimulus provided by missile defense spending, contracts to date have benefited only a handful of states and communities. For the four years from 1998-2001, 91% of missile defense contract awards went to just four states ? Alabama, California, Virginia, and Colorado. Even allowing for subcontracting and the geographic expansion of the missile defense network once key systems move into the production stage , missile defense will by and large be a "boutique" program in which relatively small numbers of highly sophisticated systemsare produced in a few key areas (for example, the $11 billion Airborne Laser Program is thus far slated to produce only 7 aircraft). The vast majority of states that help foot the bill for missile defense will see little or nothing in the way of jobs or income flowing from the program.

Finding 10 ? Giving and Getting: Campaign and Lobbying Expenditures by Top Missile Defense Contractors: The big four missile defense contractors (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and TRW) have made a total of $7.5 million in PAC and soft money donations in the 1999/2000 and 2001/2002election cycles, while spending $74 million on lobbying during that same time span. Top recipients of weapons contractor largesse in recent election cycles include Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), an avid missile defense booster who sponsored the amendment that created the 1998 Rumsfeld Commission on the ballistic missile threat and serves on the advisory board of the Center for Security Policy; Senator John Warner, the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, who recently led the fight to restore over $800 million in proposed cuts in the Bush administration?s proposed budget for missile defense; and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), whose Defend America PAC draws heavily on donations from missile defense contractors clustered in and around the Army missile command in Huntsville, Alabama. On the Democratic side of the aisle, long-time missile defense supporter Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut has been a major recipient of donations from weapons contractors in the past two election cycles.

CONTINUED

wrcooper - 12:23pm Aug 7, 2002 EST (#3544 of 3545)

CONTINUED

Recommendations

1. Independent scrutiny of the cost and performance of the proposed missile defense system and its key components is essential to avoid misguided choices and potential conflicts of interest. Now more than ever, the proposals made by the Union of Concerned Scientists and other missile defense skeptics for the establishment of an independent panel of technical experts to monitor the costs and capabilities of the missile defense program is essential. From the integral role of companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing in structuring the Missile Defense Agency?s testing program to the significant number of former executives of missile defense contractors holding key positions in the Bush administration, the need for unbiased analysis has never been greater. Internal checks and balances within the government ? such as regular reviews of key elements of the missile defense program by the Pentagon?s independent testing office and provision of detailed budget and performance data to Congress ? should be restored as well. In keeping with the need for transparency and independent analysis, the Missile Defense Agency?s decision to shroud key tests in a veil of secrecy should be rescinded.
2. In consultation with the Congress, the administration should formulate a comprehensive plan for protecting the United States and its allies from attack by weapons of mass destruction. Special emphasis should be placed on nuclear weapons, because of their immense destructive power. Priorities should be set based on the likelihood of each particular form of attack, its potential impact, and the availability of alternative methods of preventing or reducing the odds of such an attack. In the context of this "nuclear threat prevention" approach, missile defense would be just one element among many , including programs to destroy excess U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons, and to neutralize or secure materials that can be used in the production of a nuclear weapon; diplomatic initiatives designed to cap the nuclear and ballistic missile programs of problem states like North Korea; programs to improve the monitoring of ports and border crossings to prevent the smuggling of nuclear weapons or nuclear materials into the United States; and cooperative efforts to strengthen the enforcement capabilities of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Chemical and Biological Weapons conventions. In the context of a comprehensive assessment of the threats posed to the United States by weapons of mass destruction, it will be incumbent upon supporters of rapid deployment of a costly missile defense system to explain why this element of a defensive/preventive strategy should receive priority in terms of time, energy, and resources, when the U.S. government?s own top intelligence analysts on the ballistic missile threat have repeatedly noted that a ballistic missile is the least likely method a hostile nation would use to deliver a weapon of mass destruction to a target in the United States.

Contact the Authors at:
Arms Trade Resource Center
World Policy Institute at the New School
66 Fifth avenue, 9^th floor
New York, NY 10011
tel. 212.229.5808
Michelle Ciarrocca, ext. 107, ciarrm01@newschool.edu
William Hartung, ext. 106, hartung@newschool.edu

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense