A number of top U.S-based physicists have concluded that the United States used inaccurate claims to reassure NATO allies about U.S. missile defense plans in Eastern Europe.
The scientists say this is based on theoretical capabilities while the US says that actual hardware can't match the theoretical speeds the dissenting scientists claim.
Why it should be a bad thing that we might be able to shoot down Russian missiles based in western Russia from hitting us is not clear to me. And if that is bad, how would a small number of missiles threaten Russia's large inventory? And with Russian bombers and shorter range missiles nearby, why couldn't Russia destroy those bases to restore their nuclear strike capability should it come to war with us?
But wait, there's more:
While all six scientists are skeptical that the U.S. missile defense system can work, they believe that in terms of raw speed, U.S. interceptors in Poland could catch a Russian ICBM launched from western Russia at any part of the continental United States. In Postol's model, the intercept would occur at a point over the North Pole.
Let me get this straight. Based on speed alone--which we dispute--our proposed missiles could cathc Russian ICBMs. But that speed is moot based on the scientists' own conclusions about the missiles! They are "skeptical" it could work at all!
I suspect that the opposition of these scientists isn't about science as much as it is about politics.
