Roads not taken

After a great deal of analysis and debate, the United States has settled

on a national missile defense system designed to intercept missiles in mid-flight.

Other options include boost-phase interceptors, which the Russians have

proposed, and terminal-phase interceptors. During a June 20 news briefing,

Pentagon officials discussed the pros and cons of all three.

A boost-phase interceptor offers the clear advantage of knocking down

an enemy missile while the deadly debris falls onto enemy territory. No

country so far has developed a weapon sophisticated enough to do this, and

according to Pentagon officials, the United States could not field such

a weapon until around 2012, well beyond the 2005 time frame in which intelligence

sources predict a rogue nation could attack the United States.

A midcourse interceptor would have trouble discriminating between decoys

and "real McCoys," but it is technologically less challenging than the boost-phase

interceptor.

Terminal-phase interception would provide greater opportunity for sorting

out decoys but would require many more interceptors to defend all 50 states

in the late stages of an attack, possibly after dozens of submunitions were

deployed. In addition, it would be intercepting warheads — possibly carrying

nuclear, chemical or biological weapons — "right over your head."

Featured

  • FCW Perspectives
    tech process (pkproject/Shutterstock.com)

    Understanding the obstacles to automation

    As RPA moves from buzzword to practical applications, agency leaders say it’s forcing broader discussions about business operations

  • Federal 100 Awards
    Federal 100 logo

    Fed 100 nominations are now open

    Help us identify this year's outstanding individuals in federal IT.

Stay Connected

FCW INSIDER

Sign up for our newsletter.

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.