1. U.S. National Missile Defense System
a. A classified report by a Pentagon-appointed panel of experts raises numerous warning flags about the current plan for a missile defense shield, according to the Washington Post. By raising concerns over such issues as problems with the booster rocket for interceptor missiles, doubts about whether the interceptor can distinguish an enemy missile from decoys, and concern that the timetable for constructing a working system in five years is unrealistic, the report adds significant weight to recent criticism of the national missiles defense system.
"More Doubts Are Raised on Missile Shield"
b. A group of arms control advocates and prominent U.S. experts on Russia yesterday made public a letter urging President Clinton not to approve deployment of a National Missile Defense system when he makes a decision on the program later this year.
"Group Urges President To Bar Missile Defense"
c. Citing the Pentagon's own plan, critics of the proposed antimissile defense and even some military experts say all flight tests of the $60 billion weapon have been rigged to hide a fundamental flaw: The system cannot distinguish between enemy warheads and decoys. In interviews with the New York Times, they said that after the system failed to achieve this crucial discrimination goal against mock targets in its first two flight tests, the Pentagon substituted simpler and fewer decoys that would be easier for the antimissile weapon to recognize.
"Antimissile Testing Is Rigged to Hide a Flaw, Critics Say"
d. During a conference at the Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics on June 5, director of the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) Lieutenant General Ronald Kadish responded to criticism of the National Missile Defense program by saying that many misconceptions about the program "have taken on a life of their own." He emphasized that the programs is making "significant technological advances" that would make a limited missile defense of the United States possible. "We can hit a bullet with a bullet," Kadish said. Although defensive in nature, he added, the missile defense system will also influence U.S. offensive strategic forces.
"U.S. National Missile Defense: Looking Past the Headlines"
e. A sea-based national missile defense component is a possibility but DOD is concentrating almost exclusively on development of a land-based system because it wants to move as quickly as possible and the U.S. requires a system that will protect all 50 states from a ""variety of rogue nations, not just North Korea but rogue nations in other parts of the world as well."
"Pentagon: Sea-Based NMD Unlikely For Now"
f. Washington could negotiate a ban on development, production, and export of North Korea's medium- and longer-range missiles, writes Leon V. Sigal, director of the Northeast Asia Cooperative Security Project at the Social Science Research Council in New York. Doing so would be a less risky way to counter the threat than unproven missile defenses, says Sigal, who is author of Disarming "Strangers: Nuclear Diplomacy with North Korea." Segal criticizes that in the current debate over whether to build a national missile defense, "threatmongers are hyping the missile menace from so-called rogue states to justify spending $60 billion on defenses."
"Negotiating an End to North Korea's Missile-Making"