The issue, as I recall, was how "success" was promoted as if it were against an realistic target, when it wasn't. At this point it's been too long, and I can n

The issue, as I recall, was how "success" was promoted as if it were against an realistic target, when it wasn't. At this point it's been too long, and I can no longer find my source material. I did find https://web.mit.edu/stgs/pdfs/White_Paper_Associated_With_May_2010_Arms_Control_Today_Article.pdf https://web.mit.edu/stgs/pdfs/White_Paper_Associated_With_Ma... , pointing out various flaws in the testing procedures, such as: 1) counting a "kill" as hitting the rocket, when it should be hitting the warhead. ("If the kill vehicle instead hits the body of the rocket, it will tend to shatter and pass through the rocket body much like a bullet hitting a thin-walled drinking glass or an empty soda can, leaving the warhead undamaged and still falling towards its target") 2) Ineffective/non-realistic decoys ("Following these experiments, the Missile Defense Agency removed all the decoys that it determined could defeat the missile defense from all follow-on experiments")