The enemies of missile defense went on the attack late last week, relying
on their buddies at the New York Times to advance a suspicious claim.
A detailed review of last October's successful test of an anti-ballistic
missile revealed a small glitch. The ABM had drifted slightly off course
and initially locked in on a decoy balloon before it corrected itself and
slammed into a mock warhead. On Friday, the New York Times screamed this
news on its front page: "Antimissile Test Viewed as Flawed By Its
Opponents, Technical Errors Cited." Then it quoted Tom Z. Collina of the
liberal Union of Concerned Scientists: "They got lucky."
When one missile hits another missile traveling at supersonic speeds 140
miles above the earth — i.e., in outer space — luck doesn't have much to do
with it. And there's ample reason to double-check the Pentagon's
contentions: Early ABM tests in 1984 and 1991 were essentially
choreographed to succeed, despite contemporaneous claims to the contrary.
What's curious about the current critique of the October test, however, is
that it reveals the ABM outsmarting the kind of decoy critics of the
system have previously said it couldn't overcome. In a real-war situation,
argue the enemies of missile defense, a bounty of fake warheads masking
the live ones will render ABMs useless. Yet when an ABM, during a test,
briefly locks in on a decoy before finding its real target, they call the
whole endeavor a failure.
Actions speak louder than words, so perhaps the best policy is to wait
until 2:00 am GMT on Wednesday, when another missile-defense test is
scheduled. This summer, the administration is due to decide whether it
will move forward with a five-year missile-defense deployment plan. A hit
this week will help, even if the New York Times is still trying to throw
cold water on the success three months from now.
