Navy Community - discussions, photos, video - Navy Times

Sizing up missile defense

President Barack Obama has repeatedly said that the fate of the $9 billion-a-year missile de¬fense program depends on whether it works now. Analysts say that could lead to program cuts of $2 billion a year or more.

But the Pentagon should move cautiously. Nuclear-armed North Korea’s planned satellite launch, which Washington and Tokyo be¬lieve is a ballistic missile test, has the Japanese warning that they will shoot down the rocket if it ap¬pears headed for their territory. Top generals have told Congress that interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska, are capable of doing the same should it approach the U.S.

Iran, which continues to thumb its nose at Western demands to stop its nuclear development ef¬forts, demonstrated its own pow¬erful new rocket by launching a satellite in February. And China has developed ballistic missiles that could strike air bases and naval forces across the region.

All of this suggests missile de¬fenses may be called upon sooner rather than later.

But determining whether the U.S. system is up to the task is harder than it looks. There are too many unknowns, and the organi¬zations that control the data — the Missile Defense Agency, the Penta¬gon — are too vested in their pro¬grams to provide clear advice.

The answer, then, is to appoint an independent commission, simi¬lar to the Base Closure and Re¬alignment Commission that helped the military shed scores of Cold War-era facilities by depoliti¬cizing decision-making.

And if such a concept is success¬ful in missile defense, it could be duplicated. Every major military program is bound up in politics; similar commissions could prove the most effective way to assess their strategic, industrial and political rationales.