A frequent critic of U.S. ballistic missile defense programs said he would favor research and development of those programs, but didn’t endorse any of them as effective in taking down enemy missiles.
“What I would support is research and development of missile defense” programs, he said. “What I haven’t supported is deploying systems that were not effective,” he added, responding to a question from Space & Missile Defense Report.
The critic spoke at a two-day missile defense conference presented by the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C. Remarks at the conference were not for attribution, with some exceptions.
“I also haven’t supported … exaggerated claims about what those [missile defense][ systems would do,” the critic said, questioning whether U.S. missile defense systems would work in a major conflict.
He said it wouldn’t be credible that Iran or North Korea would launch just one or two missiles, instead of several.
Further, he said, no nation would dare launch a missile against the United States, because “ballistic missiles have a return address.”
U.S. missile defenses wouldn’t be effective against enemy missiles that emit countermeasures, he continued. They can include multiple warheads, confusing decoys or chaff.
The critic also alleged that 90 percent of enemy missiles would get through U.S. missile defense systems. He didn’t state a source for that assertion, in his comments.
He did acknowledge that shorter-range U.S. systems are more tested than missile defense systems designed to take down longer-range enemy weapons.
Testing isn’t sufficiently rigorous, and is always over-scripted, the critic claimed.