Opinion: Why space-based missile defense cannot work

To the editor: Our lawmakers refuse to believe people like me, an engineer who along with other scientists studied this space-based defense system and rejected it long before the Reagan administration wanted to waste money on “Star Wars.” Let me point out the problems with it. (“President Obama signs defense bill that could spur new space-based arms race,” Dec. 23)

First, we would need several rings of possibly thousands of satellites so that a few are assured to be in the vicinity of a random attacking missile payload. Second, each satellite would need optics and software to discriminate the lethal nuclear warhead from the many decoys and junk. Third, the laser needs to be stabilized to point persistently within a few centimeters on the warhead at a few hundred miles. Fourth, the warhead could be tumbling,so no point on it would remain at a single (traveling) space point for even a few seconds. Fifth, since each migrating ring of satellites would have to pass over the vast Russian territory, the Russians could covertly destroy or disable each satellite as its goes by.

The first problem could be solved with break-the-bank money, and the second and third with break-the-second-bank money. The fourth cannot be solved. And the fifth is solved if we attack Russia first.

Congress should not waste its money on this.

Earl U. Biven, Irvine

..

To the editor: This space-based interceptor system is a retread of a Reagan-era concept that turned out to be technically and economically unworkable.

As for the current missile defense system, the four or five interceptors needed to kill an incoming warhead is an underestimate. These numbers are based on artificially benign test conditions that are far from those that would occur under real wartime operations.

What we are witnessing is the triumph of right-wing political ideology over science. The members of Congress supporting a space-based system are captive to the mistaken idea that the U.S. is capable of unilaterally defending itself against a ballistic missile attack.

To the peril of our republic and our planet, they could not be more wrong.

Roy Danchick, Los Angeles

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook