The "Technical" And "Political" Debate On Missile Defense Is Heating Up

The SM-3 Interceptor A 2005 test launch lifts off from
the deck of a Navy Aegis cruiser. U.S. Navy

Missile Defense Agency Responds to New York Times Article -- DoD Live

An article published in the May 17 edition of The New York Times cited an assessment by Dr. Ted Postol and Dr. George Lewis regarding testing of the Standard Missile -3 (SM-3) now deployed with the U.S. Navy.

This sea-based interceptor missile is designed to intercept and destroy short to medium-range ballistic missiles using “hit to kill” technology, which means that the interceptor collides directly with the target missile or warhead, and destroys the target using only the force of the collision. The allegation that target intercepts were reported as successful when they were not successful is wrong, and the data presented by the authors in the article is flawed, inaccurate and misleading.

Read more ....

More News On The Debate Over Missile Defense

Pentagon: Missile Critics Use ‘Wile E. Coyote’ Physics -- The Danger Room
Missile Defenders Blast Critics After Interceptor Attack -- The Danger Room
Missile Defense Agency Responds to New York Times Article -- Defence Professionals
Hill Shrugs At NYT’s SM-3 Critique -- DoD Buzz

Review Cites Flaws in U.S. Antimissile Program -- New York Times (The article that started this debate).
Study says US missile defense weapons deeply flawed -- AFP
Criticism of U.S. missile defense plan -- UPI
Capabilities of U.S. Missile Interceptor Questioned -- Global Security Newswire
Obama's 'Proven' SM-3 Missile Interceptor May Only Succeed 20 Percent of the Time, Say Physicists -- Popular Science
And It Seems You Can’t Trust The President On Missile Defense Either -- Marty Peretz, New Republic
Aegis: Not a Silver Bullet -- Union Of Concerned Scientists

Raytheon’s Standard Missile Naval Defense Family (SM-1 to SM-6) -- Defense Industry Daily (Technical information)