Richard L. Garwin argues that instead of rushing to deploy a flawed and untested missile defense system, "military contractors, technologists and politicians should pay more attention to evaluating the relative magnitudes of the threats" and shift scarce resources to the "development of alternative systems that would have a real chance of stopping ICBMs."

Richard Garwin argues that contrary to a recent report from the American Physical Society, boost-phase missile defense could work if it was operated from a ship.

Intercepting missiles while their rockets are still burning would not be an effective approach for defending the U.S. against attacks by an important type of enemy missile. This conclusion comes from an independent study by the American Physical Society into the scientific and technical feasibility of boost-phase defense, focusing on potential missile threats from North Korea and Iran.

[Link to Study ]

Postol and Lewis argue that the Bush administration's approach to missile defense is unworkable and propose a superior boost-phase alternative.

Philip Coyle, a former Clinton administration defense official, argued against plans for boost-phase missile defense on the grounds that it would be ineffective against missiles from Russia, China, or with China, Russia or other large countries.

The Baltimore Sun reports that a consensus is growing around a boost-phase alternative to the controversial Alaska-based national missile defense system. Supporters of boost-phase include former Reagan administration officials, peaceniks, conservative think tanks, MIT scientists and Russia's president. A 'boost-phase' system would destroy a missile while it is still in the atmosphere and could be based either on land or on an Aegis cruiser.

Richard L. Garwin argues in favor of a boost-phase intercept missile defense system as an alternative to the current administration's plans.