Opinion
Join The Times' book club. This month's selection: "Cadillac Desert"
Opinion Readers React
Readers React

About that missile shield

Both the $40-billion Midcourse Defense System ordered by President George W. Bush and the $60-billion "Star Wars" system sought by President Reagan were known to be doomed to both strategic and technological failure before the first test. ("$40-billion missile defense system proves unreliable," June 15)

Reagan's dream was to develop the capability of shooting down the Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal and to provide a shield from 10,000 independently targetable warheads traveling at 15,000 miles per hour. Bush set his sights a little lower: He sought protection from Iranian and North Korean threats.

A Pentagon official said we'd need to fire up to three missiles at each target. We now have 30 interceptors that cost more than $1 billion each, although neither North Korea nor Iran possesses the capability we strive to destroy.

How much diplomacy could $100 billion buy?

Kevin H. Park

Encino

Four successful intercept tests in a row with these interceptors took place before their deployment in 2004; this provided high confidence in their reliability. Since then, this interceptor has had three more successful intercepts to provide a 75% confidence level from its last four tests. This same CE-1 interceptor represents the majority of the currently deployed interceptors protecting our nation.

This system was never designed to be reliant on one shot; it operates by firing multiple interceptors at one missile, thereby mathematically increasing its reliability to intercept above 95%.

The program's problems have been caused by misguided leadership and the lack of investment from the Obama administration. In 2009, the more modern Multiple Kill Vehicle was terminated and a cheaper adaptation to the interceptor was selected. This decision aggravated the problem.

Furthermore, a new contract with Boeing Co. was put in place that incentivized cost-cutting.

Riki Ellison

Alexandria, Va.

The writer is chairman and founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance.

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • Why being a 'real man' doesn't require carrying a gun

    To the editor: Jennifer Carlson says the increasing prevalence of men carrying guns in public in some areas is the result of a "crisis of confidence in the American dream." She writes that "men find in guns a sense of duty, relevance and even dignity." ("Why men feel the need to carry guns," op-ed,...

  • Why Bernie Sanders is truly a long-shot candidate

    Why Bernie Sanders is truly a long-shot candidate

    Just because Bernie Sanders probably won't win the Democratic nomination for president doesn't mean his candidacy isn't important, wrote Doyle McManus wrote in his column Wednesday. A few readers who expressed support for Sanders weren't pleased by McManus' assessment of the Vermont senator's chances.

  • Closing the military-civilian divide: Bring back the draft

    To the editor: The incisive and informative article highlights the degree to which 99.5% of all Americans have no involvement with our military. ("U.S. military and civilians are increasingly divided," May 24)

  • Making child death records secret wouldn't serve foster youth

    To the editor: There is a term for the practice of government agencies and courts putting children in the hands of documented abusers: court-ordered child abuse. The recent attempt in the California Legislature to cover up this practice by denying access to records when a child dies of abuse and...

  • FIFA indictments: What about the deaths in Qatar?

    FIFA indictments: What about the deaths in Qatar?

    To the editor: The corruption inquiry into soccer-governing body FIFA is long overdue, but the probe and your coverage fail to mention the most crucial aspect of the corruption: the deaths of 1,200 guest construction workers in Qatar who are slaving to build the stadiums for the 2022 World Cup,...

  • Recycled wastewater: Get over the 'yuck factor'

    To the editor: I'm a bit amused by the arguments against recycling sewage for reuse as potable water. ("Turning sewage into drinking water gains appeal as drought lingers," May 24)

Comments
Loading