If these assessments are even remotely correct, questions about the costs and benefits of fielding NMD come into sharper focus. Even this cost, which includes a constellation of 24 low-orbit satellites to track the flight path of hostile missiles, is sure to be low because of the numerous unanswered questions about NMD technology such as how well it will be able to distinguish decoys from real warheads. Its position allows it to spot a North Korean launch early enough that defending missiles would have a second shot if the first defensive salvo missed. But even a second shot may not be enough if Russia or China believe that the U.S. is trying to gain a unilateral nuclear advantage. Getting the radar in will be a major feat.
Winds are so high that construction is possible only two months of the year.
The island is so remote that the Pentagon reportedly is still wrestling with the question of how long to leave individuals on-station, one or two weeks. And its very remoteness also raises the question of how well it can be defended against attacks by commandos, cruise or ballistic missiles, or by more exotic means such as electro-magnetic pulse. On still another front, U.S. NATO allies are questioning the potential cost to the alliance of deploying a missile defense system that will protect the U.S. only. An undefended Europe alongside a NMD-protected U.S. could very quickly translate into U.S. unilateralism. The Pentagon remains undeterred.