All the ‘News’ That Fits The Times‘ Political Agenda: Latest Assault On Sdi Unfounded, Indefensible

(Washington, D.C.): The New York Times today gave front-page coverage to allegations that the Department of Defense deliberately altered a test article used in a 1984 experiment sponsored by the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO). The ostensible reason: To deceive the Soviet Union into believing that the SDI program was making great strides, obliging Moscow to bankrupt itself in the process of countering this astonishing American technological end-run.

Far more sensational, however, is the Times’ more insidious charge: According to its correspondent, Tim Weiner, no fewer than four unnamed former officials of the Reagan and Bush administrations contend that the other, albeit unintended, victim of this purported hoax was the U.S. Congress. Doing so allegedly enabled the Pentagon to obtain congressional appropriations for the SDI program that would otherwise have been unavailable.

Unfortunately for Mr. Weiner and for his editors, there is no basis in fact for this story. Rather, it appears to be yet another example of the slanted, politically motivated and unfailingly critical reporting by the New York Times of issues related to defense against missile attack in particular and military programs in general.

Just The Facts, Ma’am

The Weiner article claims that in June 1984 the Pentagon "rigged" the fourth test of an SDI experiment after the first three had failed. It quotes "former Reagan Administration officials" (sic) as saying that "To insure that the missile defense program would be seen as a success, the test was faked." According to an unnamed "scientist": "We put a beacon with a certain frequency on the target vehicle. On the interceptor we had a receiver." Weiner adds, "In effect, the scientist said, the target was talking to the missile, saying: ‘Here I am. Come and get me.’"

This is simply and demonstrably an inaccurate technical description of the test in question — the last in a series called the Homing Overlay Experiment (HOE). In fact, all four tests involved placing "C-band" radio beacons on the target vehicle. (Incidentally, the interceptors were also equipped with such beacons.) The reason? To provide initial target trajectory before the interceptors were launched and to facilitate range safety operations. In the event primary systems for measuring miss-distances failed, these beacons could also be used for that purpose.

Importantly, the HOE interceptor was optically guided after launch. It had no receiver for C-band transmissions on board and, accordingly, it could not have homed in on those emitted by the target vehicle’s beacon. What is more, even if the interceptor had been so equipped, the interceptor’s beacon would not have provided sufficiently accurate information to achieve the hit-to-kill intercept that the fourth test actually demonstrated.

As the then-director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, Gen. James Abrahamson, said today:

"The idea that we faked a test and then released that information to the Congress and the public is preposterous. There was a C-Band beacon for range-safety purposes on all four tests. It was never fed into the guidance loop. It was an optical test and a test of the optical guidance system."

 

In short, the fourth HOE demonstrated a capability that avowed critics of the program like Tim Weiner had long asserted could never be achieved: It showed that the proverbial "bullet" could hit a "bullet": a non-nuclear — indeed, non-explosive — "kill" could be accomplished on a ballistic missile or reentry vehicle in flight. This was a signal accomplishment for the SDI program, a key milestone toward the development and operational deployment of effective missile defenses. It duly worried the Soviets and properly impressed the Congress.

Yet Another Red Herring

These technical facts could have been easily established by a conscientious reporter — or one not given, as Mr. Weiner appears to be, to promoting unfounded conspiracy theories about malevolent Pentagon initiatives cloaked in secrecy. But an impartial rendering of the facts would have given lie to Mr. Weiner’s unnamed sources’ charges; it would also have rendered absurd endorsing quotes from Sen. David Pryor (D-AK) and Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-CO), two of the Congress’ most vitriolic critics of SDI.

Regrettably, the latest New York Times assault on the credibility and integrity of people and programs involved in trying to defend the United States — and its forces and allies overseas from missile attack — is all to familiar. It appears of a piece with earlier congressional and press feeding frenzies over reports of malfeasance and deception concerning the Patriot missile system and other missile defense systems.

What is rather extraordinary, however, is that the Weiner article comes after the SDI program has been effectively eviscerated by the Congress and the Clinton Administration — thanks in no small measure to similar, previous exercises in character assassination and programmatic misrepresentation. Not content with having contributed to the indefinite extension of America’s present, absolute vulnerability to missile attack, Mr. Weiner and his editors are evidently determined to sow salt in the political ground so as to encumber any future effort to resuscitate urgently needed defensive capabilities.

The Bottom Line

The Center for Security Policy believes that the least the New York Times can do in light of the gravity of the errors contained in Tim Weiner’s article and the disservice it represents to an informed debate over a key defense policy issue is to: print an immediate retraction; issue a public apology to former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger for permitting an out-of-context quote unjustifiably to appear as an oblique confirmation of the Weiner story; and end Mr. Weiner’s association with a newspaper that prides itself on being the nation’s paper of record.