A report that the world's largest body of physicists issued seven months ago contained errors that downplayed the effectiveness of a novel plan for shooting down missiles.
The 54-page report was published in February. It concluded that the proposal to shoot down North Korean missiles using drones faced very difficult challenges. As part of the society's long history of providing guidance on cutting-edge weapons, the group sent the report to Congress and the Biden administration.
The group pulled the document from its website three months later, saying in an online note that the report was under review by its authors and would be re-posted when available. There was no reason given for the withdrawal.
Errors in the society's technical analysis of the concept is what the scientists who proposed the drone idea say.
The scientist behind the proposal said it was outrageous. Dr. Garwin has been advising the U.S. government on national security issues for more than 50 years. The world's first hydrogen bomb was designed by him at the age of 23.
He and the other person who supports the idea of drones want Washington officials to have an impartial assessment of the plan.
Theodore A. Postol is a professor of national security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The physicists and engineers wrote the report. It was chaired by Frederick K. Lamb. James D. Wells and Laura Grego were co-chairs. Antimissile defense has often been faulted for being futile and destabilizing.
Private and academic groups have long questioned claims of breakthrough in destroying enemy warheads. One of the hardest tasks in warfare is hitting a bullet with a bullet. The Pentagon has been caught in a number of errors and deceptions by members of the American Physical Society.
The society has made a mistake. The episode is the first of its kind in 123 years.
The plan by Dr. Garwin and Dr. Postol is to destroy North Korean missiles. American intelligence agencies said after a run of successful flight tests that they were an emerging threat.
The plan states that American drones would fly over the Sea of Japan. If North Korea launched a nuclear attack, the drones would shoot down the missiles and destroy them.
The idea of shattering a missile's incoming warheads as they race towards their targets is seen as superior to traditional missile defense methods. The experts agree that rising missiles are more vulnerable to attack.
In 2004, the Bush administration began to deploy a system of missiles in Alaska and California that would be able to detect and destroy long-range missiles fired from North Korea. Top experts agree that it has major flaws.
The drones would stay close to the enemy. The idea of disrupting the new generation of North Korean missiles was detailed by Dr. Garwin and Dr. Postol in their studies in the last two years.
The physical society started its own study of missiles. Over the next 15 years it looked at the feasibility of both the old and new approaches. The report was published in February.
Dr. Garwin and Dr. Postol found an error in the society's report on how far they would have to fly to intercept the missiles. The carrier drones have to loiter over North Korea's mainland or a small strip of its coastal waters in order to knock out missiles fired at Boston, New York or Washington. The drones can be shot down.
The scientists found that the study group used the wrong speed for the missile. The military upshot was not affected by that mistake. The correct number was used to move the drones more than 100 miles out to sea.
You can loiter and take aim at your leisure in the Sea of Japan. You are put into an area where you can't operate.
The report's authors began exchanging emails with Dr. Garwin and Dr. Postol soon after the release of the report. The authors have admitted to mistakes and suggested fixes.
The president of the physical society, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, said that in late May and early June it had privately notified key recipients about problems with the report.
She said that it could take a year for a corrected version of the report to be made public.
According to Dr. Hellman, they take the integrity of their reports very seriously. She said it takes a long time to remove the errors because it involves a lot of experts and officials. She said that Dr. Garwin and Dr. Postol wanted it to happen in a day or two.
The chairman of the report committee said there was a problem with the revision because the study group members were busy with other things. We are in overtime. The job required a lot of care. Trying to correct something and making another mistake is the worst thing that could happen.
Dr. Hellman said that the group was looking for ways to better handle the situation in the future.
It takes a long time to correct a scientific paper. We need to be sure we know what we're talking about. The argument is for more care, not less.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
