Archie to SAM: A Short Operational History of Ground-Based Air ...

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE IN THE 1990S
of the upcoming presidential election. 56 In early 2000, a number
of influential individuals called for a delay in this decision. Some
fervent BMD proponents feared that Clinton would opt for a
minimal system and cut off the possibilities of a more robust one
and thus preferred to wait for the hoped-for election of a Republican.
Others wanted the decision taken out of the heated but not
particularly enlightening glare of election-year politics. Meanwhile,
the 2000 presidential nominees staked out positions on
the subject. The Republican, George W. Bush, proposed support
for not one but two missile defense systems (national and theater
BMD) at the earliest possible date. His opponent, Al Gore, was
more cautious. He supported the BMD concept but would not
deploy the system without further testing, talks with the Russians,
and international approval. 57
Clinton made clear that he would approve BMD if it met four
criteria. These included affordable cost, a real threat, workable
technology, and tolerable diplomatic impact. 58 All four criteria
were open to wide interpretations. For example, what cost is
tolerable? How much is it worth to save one American city?
What measure will define “workable technology”? That is, how
well must the system work? Similarly, the appraisals of threat
and diplomatic impact are subject to considerable subjective
judgment.
Throughout the history of BMD, its opponents raised
technical objections. These centered on the ease by which an
attacker could deceive, or overwhelm, the system by using relatively
simple decoys. A new issue was to point out that the
booster for the missile would not be tested until after the system
was deployed. The critics noted that it would produce 10
times the high-frequency vibrations as the test system, and,
according to a Congressional Budget Office study, “distort or
damage the kill vehicle’s optics or electronics, rendering the
interceptor impotent.” 59 Three major science groups opposed
the plan. Perhaps most impressive was a petition that about half
of all living American science Nobel laureates sent the president
urging him to reject NMD. They called the plan “premature,
wasteful, and dangerous.” 60 Opponents also raised the other
perennial objection, cost. In early April 2000, the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization director announced that the first phase of
254