The Pentagon’s top weapons buyer has endorsed a plan that could lead to a multibillion-dollar U.S. missile defense component in space and strain ties with China, Russia and other countries.
At issue is what the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency calls a space-based “test bed.” It would initially involve as few as one or two interceptor missiles designed to shoot down ballistic missiles possibly tipped with nuclear, chemical or germ warheads.
“I’m supportive of creating a test bed,” Kenneth Krieg, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, told Reuters in an interview Tuesday. “And then we’ll see what we do with it afterwards.”
The Missile Defense Agency plans to seek $45 million in seed money to start building the experimentation center in the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, 2007.
Would it strengthen wider program?
The project would gauge the value of putting interceptor missiles in space to strengthen the U.S. anti-ballistic missile shield being developed on the ground, at sea and aboard a modified Boeing Co. jumbo jet equipped with an airborne laser.
Other companies with big missile-defense contracts include Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp. and Raytheon Co.
The Bush administration has been spending roughly $10 billion a year on all aspects of ballistic missile defense.
The space-based pilot project would involve just one or two ”small-scale” interceptors with no offensive capability, Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, head of the Missile Defense Agency, said in a September interview with Arms Control Today magazine.
Krieg said the project would create new missile-defense options, “and I think increasing the number of options we have to choose from is generally a good idea.”
How would Russia and China respond?
Critics say building such a facility may strain ties with countries such Russia and China that oppose the idea of weapons in space.
“The concern is that you’re going to wind up spending a lot of money, and all that’s going to happen is you’re going to have more nuclear weapons aimed at American cities,” said John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org, an expert on space and weapons issues.
China and Russia probably would respond by deploying more long-range missiles “to make sure that our defense did not work against them,” he said.
Calling it a “test bed” may not allay concerns, because this is how an interceptor site in Fort Greely, Alaska, was described before it in effect became operational, said Wade Boese, research director of the private Arms Control Association.
Obering made a similar point in the Sept. 29 interview with Arms Control Today.
“I would anticipate that we would not have an operational space-based interceptor layer unless we needed it,” he said. ”But these defenses take take time, so being able to go from a test bed into an operational status in a very short amount of time is something that is an advantage, not a disadvantage.”