Get Opinion in your inbox -- sign up for our weekly newsletter
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


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
  • Not unlike measles, California vaccination debate rages on

    Not unlike measles, California vaccination debate rages on

    To the editor: I commend the Legislature for passing and the governor for signing the bill requiring “children entering school or day care to be vaccinated against measles, mumps, whooping cough and other diseases. (“Law's foes refuse to quit,” July 4) Parents will no longer be able to cite religious...

  • Remembering a wartime hero: Nicholas Winton

    Remembering a wartime hero: Nicholas Winton

    To the editor: Sadly, very little attention was shown to the passing of a giant, Nicholas Winton of Britain, age 106. (“Nicholas Winton, 1909-2015,” Obituary, July 2)This low-key, unassuming clerk “would almost single-handedly save more than 650 Jewish children from the Holocaust, earning himself...

  • Can't we prevent child abuse?

    Can't we prevent child abuse?

    To the editor: The torture and killing of 8-year-old Gabriel Fernandez (“D.A. seeks death penalty in torture case,” July 2) at the hands of his mother and her boyfriend was as tragic and horrifying as it was preventable. It is unfathomable that this child endured unspeakable acts of abuse from...

  • Don't forget about the candidates; 2016 is coming on fast

    Don't forget about the candidates; 2016 is coming on fast

    The last few weeks have seen momentous decisions in America – especially the Supreme Court's decisions on same-sex marriage and Obamacare.

  • Marriage equality: a right is a right

    Marriage equality: a right is a right

    To the editor: Descriptions such as “restraint” or “intervention” seem inappropriate when describing our current Supreme Court justices. I prefer the terms “unreasonable” or “reasonable.” (“Same-sex marriage ruling highlights Supreme Court quandary: Restraint or intervention?,” June 29)Unreasonable...

  • Obamacare decision: Lawyers doing what lawyers do

    Obamacare decision: Lawyers doing what lawyers do

    To the editor: I was startled to read the opinion piece by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley on King vs. Burwell. (“A terrible precedent,” Opinion, June 29) Clearly there are some good arguments pro and con, and a literalist interpretation of what appears to have been a typographical...