Reports question U.S. shield of Europe

After 24 years and more than $100 billion spent to develop a U.S. missile defense, an American-operated system proposed for Europe would cost billions more to deploy and still may fail, a series of independent reports concludes. President Obama recently suggested he would consider scrapping the Europe system in exchange for Russia's help in thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions. During last year's campaign, Obama said he would support missile defense if it proved workable. The type of ground-based interceptors that would be deployed in Europe failed to hit targets in five of 13 tests, according to the Pentagon. They have not demonstrated an ability to detect decoys, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) says. The Europe system has not been tested. The system, planned as a potential defense should Iran develop a nuclear capability, would cost $9 billion to $13 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and would leave parts of Europe unprotected from an Iranian missile. All told, the government has spent $144 billion on missile defense since 1985, according to the CBO. In the most recent test of the U.S.-based system, an interceptor launched in December from California destroyed a warhead launched from Alaska. But a goal of the test was to see if the interceptor could distinguish a live warhead from decoys, and the decoys failed to deploy. Independent technical analysis has shown that Iran and North Korea, which has a nuclear program, could fool the system using simple countermeasures such as balloons, says critic David Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Do I believe with any confidence that this system would be able to stop a nuclear attack? The answer is no," he said. The successful tests "have all been scripted for success," said former Pentagon testing chief Philip Coyle, another skeptic. "It's a little bit like comparing the results of students doing open book exams." Richard Lehner, spokesman for the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, disputed those assessments. In an e-mail, he said the tests are "as operationally realistic as possible." Russia objects strenuously to the U.S. plan originated by the Bush administration to place a system of radar and interceptor missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic. Two weeks ago, Obama sent a letter to his Russian counterpart saying that the missile system might not be needed if Russia could help pressure Iran to give up its nuclear program. Republicans, including House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, were criticized Obama for suggesting that deal. The GAO told Congress last month that missile defense testing has been plagued by delays and "performance challenges." The type of system proposed for Europe, which is already partly in place in the United States, "continues to experience testing problems and delays," the GAO said. A January report by the Congressional Research Service noted that "some observers continue to question how much confidence there should be in the system's potential operational or combat effectiveness based on the types of tests conducted and the test results to date." Still, John Pike, a defense expert who runs the national security website globalsecurity.org, says the weak test record will improve and the system may be worth deploying despite its flaws. "I have a little difficulty believing that the whole damn thing is so manifestly a fool's errand," he said. Charles McQueary, who directs testing for the missile agency, told a congressional committee last month that the U.S.-based system "has demonstrated a limited capability to defend against a simple long-range ballistic missile threat launched from North Korea," but "we still have a long way to go." Physicist Richard Garwin, who helped design the hydrogen bomb and served recently on a commission to assess the ballistic missile threat, said in an email that because it can be so easily defeated by decoys, the "system is not worth deploying, because it will be useless."