Missile defense technically unfeasible

July 25, 2003 - Technophilia simply means the love of technology. It's a term that could be used to describe the entirety of the developed world in the 21st Century. We have become a technology and gadget-obsessed society. But when that obsession becomes blind, it can be dangerous. And nowhere is that more apparent than in the U.S. government's desire to build a missile defense system.

Critics of such a system have pointed out that it violates the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, could destabilize international relations and will cost an absolute fortune. Now, a new report indicates that it is probably technically unfeasible as well.

Up until recently, plans to shoot down an enemy missile (from a "nation of concern" like North Korea or Iran) have focused on hitting one as it falls toward a target in the U.S.. A missile defense station is currently being built in Alaska for just that purpose, but such a strategy is fraught with technical problems. Hitting a small, tumbling warhead with another missile is no easy task. Tests of all but the most simple scenarios have routinely failed, and critics say that enemies could easily overwhelm any anti-missile system by using missiles with multiple warheads, decoys or other low-tech measures.

Proponents, like President Bush, have been unperturbed by the technical problems and high costs - $9.1 billion for 2004. Indeed, other anti-missile strategies are also being pursued, including space-based systems and giant lasers. Many proponents have also argued that if hitting a falling warhead is too difficult, then a system should be built that could hit missiles on their way up when their rockets are burning bright and hot, and their large fuel tanks make them bigger targets.

A study by the respected American Physical Society has found that this strategy too faces seemingly insurmountable technical challenges. The report looked at what sorts of missile technology will be available to nations such as Iran and North Korea in the next 10-15 years and compared it to proposed anti-missile systems designed to hit missiles during their "boost" phase.

None of the options is promising. One of the biggest technical problems is that, from time of launch to the time when fuel is spent and the engines cut out, is just four minutes for a liquid-fueled missile and three minutes for a solid-fueled missile. For an American interceptor to catch up, it would have to be much larger (and more expensive) than anything currently on the drawing board. Once you subtract the time it takes to detect a launch and fire an interceptor, there will be just 100 seconds left for it to track down the enemy missile, which will require interceptor speeds of 10 km per second - far beyond the scope of anything available today. Even then, an anti-missile system will have to be stationed very close to the borders of a perceived enemy - within 400 to 1,000 kilometers, in fact.

Space-based interceptors fare even worse, as the physicists say that roughly 1,000 of them would be needed to cover enough area to enable them to reach a target on time. A high-tech laser option might work if it were positioned within 300-600 kilometers of the launch site, but the report points out that lasers would be ineffective against solid-fueled rockets, which North Korea and Iran are expected to have within a decade.

The U.S. government may love anti-missile systems, but they have a record of failure. The Patriot and Patriot II anti-missile systems have proven notoriously unreliable and even dangerous. Critics say these systems may pose a bigger threat to friendly aircraft than to enemy missiles. That doesn't bode well for a vastly more complicated anti-ballistic missile system.

Technology has vastly improved our lives. But to blindly pursue technological solutions to political problems is technophilia at its worst. The missile defense system is a prime example and Canada should have no part in this foolhardy venture.

To discuss this topic with others, visit the discussion forum.