Twenty-five years ago today, Ronald Reagan shocked the world — and most of his scientific and military advisers — by announcing a plan with the “ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles.” A quarter-century and $120 billion later, the United States has an anti-missile system that can certainly knock a single target out of the sky, with lots of advanced notice. But it’s not clear how much more our missile defense system can do. While our interceptor technology has shown major strides, lately, the tests of these systems are still highly, highly scripted.
So here’s my question to you guys: Was it worth it? And is it worth it, to keep spending $10 billion a year on the system Reagan envisioned, all those years ago? Sound off, in the comments below.
To help you decide, check out Jack Hitt’s epic, if not exactly friendly, history of the program, written for Rolling Stone a few months back. And here’s a snip from Reagan’s original “Star Wars” speech:
Let me share with you a vision of the future which offers hope. It is that we embark on a program to counter the awesome Soviet missile threat with measures that are defensive. Let us turn to the very strengths in technology that spawned our great industrial base and that have given us the quality of life we enjoy today.
What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?
I know this is a formidable, technical task, one that may not be accomplished before the end of this century.
Yet, current technology has attained a level of sophistication where it’s reasonable for us to begin this effort. It will take years, probably decades of effort on many fronts. There will be failures and setbacks, just as there will be successes and breakthroughs. And as we proceed, we must remain constant in preserving the nuclear deterrent and maintaining a solid capability for flexible response. But isn’t it worth every investment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear war? We know it is….
Tonight, consistent with our obligations of the ABM treaty and recognizing the need for closer consultation with our allies, I’m taking an important first step. I am directing a comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long-term research and development program to begin to achieve our ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles. This could pave the way for arms control measures to eliminate the weapons themselves. We seek neither military superiority nor political advantage. Our only purpose–one all people share–is to search for ways to reduce the danger of nuclear war.
Separately, there’s the issue of whether the Missile Defense Agency is being a good steward of our anti-missile dollars. It’s a question that sure to come up, CQ’s Josh Rogin notes, because agency chief Lt. Gen. Henry ‘Trey’ Obering III, is about to leave his post after four years. “Bush has nominated Obering’s deputy, Army Maj. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, to replace him. O’Reilly’s Senate confirmation hearings could become another forum for Congress to question MDA’s operations.” And there is a lot to question:
In their final report to accompany the fiscal 2008 defense appropriations bill, the House Appropriations Committee wrote that MDA has not done enough to supervise its contractors. In one example noted by the committee, the agency had more than $2.7 billion worth of contracts that did not include detailed information on expenditures.
Though the MDA has acknowledged that several of its prime contractors have been incorrectly classifying their work in order to boost performance statistics, according to the GAO, the agency still awarded 90 percent of contract performance bonuses in fiscal 2007, totaling $579 million. Several congressional staff members expressed frustration about the agency’s contracting tactics, such as splitting a contract after awarding it to one company, but they said the oversight committees have few options beyond criticizing the agency in legislative reports.
“Remember, MDA isn’t bound by the regular rules,” one aide said. “MDA has been given carte blanche.”
Posted March 25, 2008 
Comments(0) 
