NewsHour Extra: Missile Defense System

Successful Shooting?

Success! After some very public failed attempts, the Pentagon successfully shot down a missile this month, using the controversial missile defense technology.

Military officials in California launched an IC missile carrying a warhead and a large decoy balloon into outer space.

Twenty minutes after the missile and decoy was fired, military brass on the Marshall Island, 4,800 miles away from California, shot an inceptor towards the missile.

Ten minutes later and 144 miles in space, the inceptor struck and destroyed the IC missile.

Hitting the Mark

Although military leaders are cheering the inceptor "hit," missile defense leaders acknowledge more work is needed.

This month's test was less complex than previous ones. In prior tests, radar beacons were placed in the decoy balloon and missile warhead. The purpose is to make the inceptor or "kill vehicle" as it's called, distinguish between a live bomb and a fake during a real missile attack.

In this month's test only the warhead had radar. Moreover, the decoy balloon was ten times brighter than the warhead missile. Inceptor's are programmed to hit darker objects.

Critic's say while the test showed the ability to guide inceptors, it also showed inceptors do not have the capability of discriminating among targets.

Another, more complex anti-missile test is scheduled for October.

What's the score?

If this were sports missile defense would have a 50-50 record. The Pentagon began missile testing in 1999. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said the Pentagon would conduct 20 more missile tests over the next five years.

The Pentagon is asking Congress for $8 billion in missile defense funding for next year. Approximately half the increase would go for testing, which costs an estimated $100 million a try.

Earlier this month, Pentagon officials laid out plans for a multi-layered system capable of launch interceptors from the air, sea and space.

Even before this month's test, President Bush announced his administration would begin construction in August, on a missile defense test site in Alaska. The site is expected finished by 2004.

The inceptor success and the Alaska test site are both parts of the president's plan for a broad missile defense shield.

Selling it to Russia

When President Bush traveled to Europe in June, he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The meeting, the first for both presidents, focused on Bush's plan to build a missile defense shield for the U.S and its allies.

But to build the shield, the U.S. needs Russia's agreement to cancel or change a treaty that basically outlaws it.

Despite the handshakes exchanged in the photo-ops, the two presidents did not reach an agreement.

Condoleezza Rice Condelezza Rice, the national security adviser, said the U.S. would proceed with the shield whether the Russians agree to it or not.

President Putin later said if the U.S. goes ahead with the plan, Russia would start building more nuclear weapons.

In July, the Russian president signed a pact with Chinese president Jiang Zemin. The presidents vowed to create a "new international order" and reaffirmed their opposition to the missile shield.

Think Umbrellas

Mr. Bush wants to build the missile shield because he believes the U.S. is vulnerable to missile attacks from "rogue" nations like North Korea or Iraq.

Proposed Missile Shield In theory, missile defense would work like a giant umbrella, protecting the U.S. from incoming missiles. Using sophisticated radar systems and inceptor missiles, the system would detect and destroy incoming missiles before they hit. Unfortunately, most of the preliminary tests failed. Some scientists describe the system as "trying to hit a bullet with another bullet." In a nutshell, not easy.

A Treaty with Russia

Nixon and Brezhnev In 1972, U.S. President Nixon and Soviet Communist Party leader Leonid Brezhnev signed a document called the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Basically, the two nations (who were then enemies) promised not to build anti-missile systems and outlaws either nation from building missile defense shields covering more than one territory. In other words, the U.S. has already promised not to do exactly what the president wants.

President Bush says the treaty is outmoded and a relic of the Cold War. Others say the treaty is no longer "real" because the Soviet Union no longer exists.

In the 1970s the U.S. deployed a shield over missile fields in North Dakota but later shut it down to comply with the treaty.

The treaty assumptions are simple; if both sides are vulnerable to nuclear attacks than nobody will be the first to strike. If one side is protected by a shield, there is nothing to stop them from attacking first.

A whole bunch of questions

The Russians aren't the only ones with reservations about missile defense. Even the leaders of Europe -- who would theoretically be protected by the shield -- have doubts.

"It's obvious that anyone who wanted to attack another country and was confronted with this defense shield...would have a natural reaction to send more missiles," said French President Chirac. "This is a fantastic invitation to proliferate."

German Chancellor Schroeder Instead, some leaders, like German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, want to focus on disarmament -- reducing the number of weapons in each nation's stockpile.

Others say there's no point in building a shield against nuclear missiles when anyone who wanted to hurt the U.S. or its friends could easily use biological or chemical weapons instead.

And some Americans are worried about how much the shield would cost. The U.S. has already spent millions on research and is expected to spend billions more on development.

"The new threats are threats based upon uncertainty, the threats that somebody who hates freedom or hates America or hates our allies or hates Europe, will try to blow us up," said President Bush. " I think people are coming our way. But people know that I'm intent upon doing what I think is the right thing in order to make the world more peaceful."

What do you think? Should the U.S. proceed with its missile defense system? How important is it to stick by treaties?

NewsHour Extra Mr. Bush goes to Europe: The president travels to Europe to talk NATO, missile defense and global warming. How's he doing? The first 100 days of the Bush presidency. The World Ahead: The international challenges faced by the Bush team. NewsHour Specials Bush Goes to Europe National Missile Defense For Teachers Browse additional coverage of Europe Outside Links: Extra is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites. The White House The European Union		Successful Shooting? Success! After some very public failed attempts, the Pentagon successfully shot down a missile this month, using the controversial missile defense technology. Military officials in California launched an IC missile carrying a warhead and a large decoy balloon into outer space. Twenty minutes after the missile and decoy was fired, military brass on the Marshall Island, 4,800 miles away from California, shot an inceptor towards the missile. Ten minutes later and 144 miles in space, the inceptor struck and destroyed the IC missile. Hitting the Mark Although military leaders are cheering the inceptor "hit," missile defense leaders acknowledge more work is needed. This month's test was less complex than previous ones. In prior tests, radar beacons were placed in the decoy balloon and missile warhead. The purpose is to make the inceptor or "kill vehicle" as it's called, distinguish between a live bomb and a fake during a real missile attack. In this month's test only the warhead had radar. Moreover, the decoy balloon was ten times brighter than the warhead missile. Inceptor's are programmed to hit darker objects. Critic's say while the test showed the ability to guide inceptors, it also showed inceptors do not have the capability of discriminating among targets. Another, more complex anti-missile test is scheduled for October. What's the score? If this were sports missile defense would have a 50-50 record. The Pentagon began missile testing in 1999. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said the Pentagon would conduct 20 more missile tests over the next five years. The Pentagon is asking Congress for $8 billion in missile defense funding for next year. Approximately half the increase would go for testing, which costs an estimated $100 million a try. Earlier this month, Pentagon officials laid out plans for a multi-layered system capable of launch interceptors from the air, sea and space. Even before this month's test, President Bush announced his administration would begin construction in August, on a missile defense test site in Alaska. The site is expected finished by 2004. The inceptor success and the Alaska test site are both parts of the president's plan for a broad missile defense shield. Selling it to Russia When President Bush traveled to Europe in June, he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The meeting, the first for both presidents, focused on Bush's plan to build a missile defense shield for the U.S and its allies. But to build the shield, the U.S. needs Russia's agreement to cancel or change a treaty that basically outlaws it. Despite the handshakes exchanged in the photo-ops, the two presidents did not reach an agreement. Condelezza Rice, the national security adviser, said the U.S. would proceed with the shield whether the Russians agree to it or not. President Putin later said if the U.S. goes ahead with the plan, Russia would start building more nuclear weapons. In July, the Russian president signed a pact with Chinese president Jiang Zemin. The presidents vowed to create a "new international order" and reaffirmed their opposition to the missile shield. Think Umbrellas Mr. Bush wants to build the missile shield because he believes the U.S. is vulnerable to missile attacks from "rogue" nations like North Korea or Iraq. In theory, missile defense would work like a giant umbrella, protecting the U.S. from incoming missiles. Using sophisticated radar systems and inceptor missiles, the system would detect and destroy incoming missiles before they hit. Unfortunately, most of the preliminary tests failed. Some scientists describe the system as "trying to hit a bullet with another bullet." In a nutshell, not easy. A Treaty with Russia In 1972, U.S. President Nixon and Soviet Communist Party leader Leonid Brezhnev signed a document called the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Basically, the two nations (who were then enemies) promised not to build anti-missile systems and outlaws either nation from building missile defense shields covering more than one territory. In other words, the U.S. has already promised not to do exactly what the president wants. President Bush says the treaty is outmoded and a relic of the Cold War. Others say the treaty is no longer "real" because the Soviet Union no longer exists. In the 1970s the U.S. deployed a shield over missile fields in North Dakota but later shut it down to comply with the treaty. The treaty assumptions are simple; if both sides are vulnerable to nuclear attacks than nobody will be the first to strike. If one side is protected by a shield, there is nothing to stop them from attacking first. A whole bunch of questions The Russians aren't the only ones with reservations about missile defense. Even the leaders of Europe -- who would theoretically be protected by the shield -- have doubts. "It's obvious that anyone who wanted to attack another country and was confronted with this defense shield...would have a natural reaction to send more missiles," said French President Chirac. "This is a fantastic invitation to proliferate." Instead, some leaders, like German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, want to focus on disarmament -- reducing the number of weapons in each nation's stockpile. Others say there's no point in building a shield against nuclear missiles when anyone who wanted to hurt the U.S. or its friends could easily use biological or chemical weapons instead. And some Americans are worried about how much the shield would cost. The U.S. has already spent millions on research and is expected to spend billions more on development. "The new threats are threats based upon uncertainty, the threats that somebody who hates freedom or hates America or hates our allies or hates Europe, will try to blow us up," said President Bush. " I think people are coming our way. But people know that I'm intent upon doing what I think is the right thing in order to make the world more peaceful." What do you think? Should the U.S. proceed with its missile defense system? How important is it to stick by treaties?