The political decision of whether or not the US is going to attack North Korea rests at least in part on the effectiveness of the $40 billion US missile defense system, and its ability to shoot down retaliatory strikes from North Korea. While the Pentagon has insisted they have 100% confidence they can do so, experts are warning the system probably doesn’t work.
Indeed, the Union of Concerned Scientists has even issued a statement warning that Pentagon confidence is not only unwarranted from the data, but may be misinforming politicians making decisions on starting a war on the basis of their defensive capabilities.
The experts warn that there has been very limited testing of the missile defense system, and even in those tests, which are in ideal situations and not real world conflicts, the system has only succeeded three times out of nine. In a real world scenario, it would likely be even less dependable.
And while political officials and the Pentagon both play up the system, even the GAO has faulted the system for insufficient testing. The program has long survived because it was never likely to be used, and its ineffectiveness wouldn’t matter if it’s just sitting there soaking up taxpayer dollars. As the US considers attacking North Korea, however, the system could quickly be put to real life tests.
Trouble is, if North Korea shoots and somehow hits something in the U.S. or worse kills Americans, it will only make people more fearful and angry at North Korea and willing to go to war. In this case, system failure is probably desired.
Expensive weapons systems that don’t live up to the sales pitch are not new to Americans. Being touched directly on home soil by a foreign war hasn’t happened since Japan took potshots with a submarine’s deck gun during WWII. (9/11 and IS terrorism don’t count).
We misplaced our aircraft carrier. Given that display, could we try to shoot down a North Korean missile and just miss, just fail?
What would be the consequences of such a public failure? The deterrent effect of and reassurance from defenses we are installing at great expense would be gone. We’d be left without that, to get by on blustering threats to attack. That can only make things worse.
So we should stop development of missile defense systems?
Do they need to be perfect before we deploy them given that they can save some lives?
Should we be completely vulnerable to missiles? That does not seem wise.
Disagree with their effectiveness and US foreign policy, but is it wise to not try to protect ourselves from missiles?
Just remember this those Pentagon Generals are in fact basing their whole Russian bear bating strategy on the anti ballistic missile systems that they are try to spout. If they are wrong then there will be huge problems, well for the normal person at least. but hey just like Trump they will be safely locked away in their bunkers, with enough food water and necessities of life for several years to come!
Anti-ballistic missile systems are in and of themselves “destabilizing”. Whether they work or not an adversary is forced to assume they will. This puts them in the position of having to make their own ABMs or using their weapons before their enemies ABMs become operationally effective. So long as its only 3 in 9 there is still time to step back from the madness.