U.S. anti-missile plan is hopelessly flawed

HOW HE SEES IT

U.S. anti-missile plan is hopelessly flawed

By JOEL BRINKLEY

McClatchy-Tribune News Service

It doesn’t take much to rile Vladimir Putin, the irascible, autocratic Russian leader. But nothing the Bush administration has done in the last seven years has angered Putin more than the proposal to base anti-missile systems in several nations along Russia’s border.

Putin has again warned that he will train Russia’s ballistic missiles on any state that chooses to host the American anti-missile bases.

“We are warning people ahead of time,” he said. “If you take this step, then we will make this step.”

Flush with oil money and hungry to regain Russia’s stature, Putin seems eager to use the United States as a foil. Still, how smart is it to stick a finger in his eye, particularly for anti-missile systems that, at best, remain highly speculative research projects. Why on earth does President Bush need to press for basing rights when at the moment the United States has nothing worthwhile to deploy on these bases?

To understand this better, consider the two complementary systems under development: anti-missile missiles and the airborne laser that is supposed to destroy a missile soon after launch.

Patriot in action

I have a bit of personal experience with anti-missile missiles, in Israel during the first Gulf War. The United States deployed a Patriot anti-missile battery just outside Tel Aviv, to counter Saddam Hussein’s Scud attacks. One night, I stood on a hotel balcony to watch as a Scud arced in from the east, trailing fire in its wake. Below me, a Patriot launched with a roar.

Moments later, the two missiles met high above the city, and the Patriot exploded, destroying the Scud, just as it was supposed to. But then the fiery debris from both missiles — including the Scud warhead — rained down on Tel Aviv and destroyed two homes. What did the Patriot accomplish?

Today, most anti-missile missiles are intended to intercept the target in mid-flight, not a trivial task. With current technology, the missiles can often find their targets, but decoys can easily fool them. The military has not even begun testing for that problem. What’s more, the missiles are primarily intended to attack inter-continental ballistic missiles, which not a serious threat today.

The airborne laser offers several theoretical advantages. It would be mounted on an airplane, and the laser could be re-aimed to follow the target missile. What is more, since the idea is to destroy the missile shortly after launch, it would not have had time to deploy decoys. The debris would fall on the enemy country.

Or so the advocates say.

Multiple vulnerabilties

Even a cursory look at this program exposes so many vulnerabilities that it’s a wonder the government is spending money on this, nearly $5 billion since 1998, including $514 million during the current fiscal year.

The laser is supposed to have a range of about 200 miles. Well, if Iran, China, Russia or even North Korea launched a missile from deep within its territory, the airborne laser, circling offshore, would not be able to reach it.

If Jamaica launched a missile, the laser might stand a chance.

That problem aside, the enemy would need only polish and buff the missile skin. Most of the laser beam would reflect away. The enemy could design the missile to spin. That way the laser could not hold its beam on one spot which it must do to burn a hole in the side. The missile could be insulated so heat could not penetrate. It could use super-cold liquid fuel that cools the exterior skin.

If none of that works, shoot down the laser plane, a Boeing 747.

“That’s a big sitting duck,” said Jan Stupl, an airborne-laser expert at the University of Hamburg.

If the enemy fails to consider any of these ideas, here are more: Fire the missile while the laser plane is out of range, or being refueled. Or fire two or three missiles. The laser plane can hit only one at a time.

“It’s never going to be a real defense system,” said Dean Wilkening, a missile-defense expert at Stanford University.

What’s going on?

Perhaps Bush wants to deploy these billion-dollar marionettes to create facts on the ground that the next president could not easily undo. Maybe Putin’s blustering is intended primarily for a domestic audience.

But my advice for Putin: Spend your time on something you’re good at: disqualifying opposition candidates, arresting journalists. Stop worrying about the American anti-missile bases.

X Joel Brinkley is a former Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign correspondent for The New York Times and now a professor of journalism at Stanford University.