Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Wednesday, July 17, 2002

CAPITOL HILL – "How much is this [the missile defense system] going to cost the American people?" demanded Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, D-Ohio, of Lt. Gen. Ronald T. Kadish, the director of the Missile Defense Agency. "I don't know," replied Kadish.

Kucinich reminded Kadish that $70 billion of taxpayer money had already been spent and about $8 billion a year was earmarked to continue to fund the controversial program, which is still in the research and development phases. "Are you asking for a blank check?" Kucinich asked rhetorically.

The National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations subcommittee hearings Tuesday were academically billed as "Missile Defense: A New Organization, Evolutionary Technologies and Unrestricted Testing," but quickly heated with congressional frustration over the missile defense program's apparent open-ended costs and the tardiness by the Pentagon to provide Congress details about the program's itinerary of tests, benchmarks, goals and timelines.

Kucinich, the most aggressive questioner, wanted to know why such specifics, which had been promised in June, were now slated to be provided congressional overseers sometime in the fall. Congressional angst on the subject of overseeing missile defense has been exacerbated since Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld pulled the program from the usual reporting requirements of operational regulation documents, or ORD. The DOD has maintained that the streamlining was necessary to ensure rapid decision-making and progress in the R and D process.

But congressmen and congresswomen such as Rep. Janice Schakowsky, D-Ill., are not convinced and voiced strong concern to Kadish: "If this program were in a different department, it would be long gone," she said. "The American people demand and deserve to know how this money is being spent. Why does Congress continue to appropriate money without any proof?"

Rep. John F. Tierney, D-Mass., added his own lament: "Looks like there are no requirements at all." Tierney also noted that there were no cost-per-year estimates at all beyond 2002.

Some of the proof of the program's worthiness that concerned members of the subcommittee involved the realism of the testing. After viewing a film presented by Kadish of a recent test, Kucinich pressed Kadish on the issue:

"Isn't it a fact that [during the test] the system knew the target missile's trajectory?"

Kadish: "Yes."

"… the time of the target's launch?"

Kadish: "Yes."

"… the launch location of the target?"

Kadish: "Yes."

Kadish went on to admit that even in the case of the nation's short-range defensive missile, Patriot III, all was not real-world, conceding, "there are even unrealistic elements [in the testing] there."

Another area of focus was the subject of the missile defense's ability to deal with decoys. Kadish admitted that it was a nettlesome problem that would eventually require the U.S. to design and build its own decoys and to test them against the system – sometime down the road.

Basically, Kadish explained, the present theory was that the inability of the seeking missile to distinguish between the real thing and a decoy would be countered by the "layered" configuration of the system itself.

"An enemy's decoys may be effective during the [incoming missile's] boost phase but not, for instance, in its mid-course phase," Kadish explained. The failsafe against decoys would be incorporated in the layered defense strategy's ability to take "multiple shots" at the incoming missile during the various phases of the missile's launch and travel to its target in the U.S., he added.

Kadish said he sympathized with the concerns of his questioners, but that things would flesh out in the future. "We've only done six tests. You've got to walk before you run."

Kadish also promised that there would eventually be "benchmarks and there will be reports to Congress," noting that the nation's recent withdrawal from the ABM treaty suddenly "allowed us to defend against missiles of all ranges. We're in unknown territory."

Kadish added, "We're trying to find the best and most affordable system."

But some members of the committee maintained that there were lessons to be learned from such truncated programs as the Crusader artillery system that consumed billions before being axed as impractical.

Kadish emphasized the importance of the system: "Our nation has no defense against long-range missiles and only limited defense against short-range. We are at a crossroads."

But Kucinich would not be convinced, at one point saying that it was imperative to know, "Is there any fraud going on?"

Last year the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) was re-designated the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and directed to focus on four top priorities:

• To defend the United States, deployed forces, allies and friends against ballistic missile attack.

• To employ a Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) against all ranges of threats, one that is layered to intercept missiles in all phases of their flight, from right after liftoff to arcing over the Earth, and during the terminal phase of the rocket's flight.

• To enable the services to field elements of the overall BMDS as soon as practicable.

• To develop and test technologies, use prototype and test assets to provide early capability, if necessary, and improve the effectiveness of deployed capability by inserting new technologies as they become available or when the threat warrants an accelerated capability.

Recently, Kadish said that his agency's freedom to test new technologies was threatened by more than $800 million in budget cuts.

However, despite problems, he said, his agency had performed many tests over the past two years and is satisfied that it can perform its "hit-to-kill" strategy, which relies heavily on information technology, communications and integrated sensors.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Bush Administration

Missile Defense