Prague - Why sign up for something, which has not been properly tested so far, has so many strings attached to it and which ultimately fails to provide what it promises, i.e. increased security?

That is the message brought to Czech public this week, courtesy of a man who should know a thing or two about the American missile defense system, because he used to be in charge of testing it not too long ago.

Philip Coyle, advisor of the Washington-based Centre for Defense Information, had been Undersecretary of Defense during the Clinton administration between 1994 and 2001.

As a director of operational test and evaluation he oversaw the process of development of all kinds of weapon systems including that of a shield whose main task is to protect America (and its allies if they sign up) from the danger posed by "rogue states" like North Korea and Iran.

Intense radar diplomacy

His visit in the Brdy region, the site of the proposed US radar which would make the Czech Republic part of the system, and Prague, where he met various politicians and gave talks, came through an invitation from the Greenpeace organization.

Interestingly enough, it coincided with the visit of General Henry Obering, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) in Pentagon, who came here once again to convince the Czechs they had nothing to fear if they jump on the radar wagon (and vice versa).

READ MORE: Better safe than sorry. Mr. Umbrella pitches for radar

The two men know each other, the former called the latter "a nice man" in an interview for Aktuálně.cz, the latter called the former "a private citizen, who is entitled to say whatever he wants".

They didn't meet in Prague despite being here at the same time (coincidentally, as both assured) and one can see why.

Aktuálně.cz: Mr. Coyle, could you please explain, right at the beginning, the origins of your skepticism towards the system which you yourself were helping to develop for quite some time?

Philip Coyle: Look, I have been involved in the test and evaluation business many years, probably four decades, and you just come to realize that sometimes things are very difficult and sometimes they work. The missile defense system has not gone through what we call the real environment testing yet and there are many, many tests still to go before it will be ready, before the general Obering would say it is ready for realistic testing.

These tests that he does of the ground-based system are very expensive and complicated. They can cost as much as 80 or 100 million dollar a piece, for one test. They are so complicated. Obviously, he thinks that's too expensive and so do I, but that's what they cost. So far the tests have been scripted, planned out and detailed, because they are so expensive you don't want them to fail. It's embarrassing when they fail for the program, because it makes headlines in papers like yours (laughing). But it's not the real environment.

So what kind of results have these preliminary tests showed?

There have been 13 flight intercept tests, talking now about the ground-based system, not the navy system or others. There have been 13 tests, 7 now have been successful and 6 have failed. In the case of two of them, the interceptor missile never got off the ground, in two cases it failed to launch, didn't get out of its silo.

The reasons for each success or failure vary from test to test and you can find the rundown of these at our web-page: www.cdi.org. So obviously, it's running about 50 per cent success rate so far and I don't think that would be acceptable to any military commander.

And if I'm not mistaken, these tests worked with a scenario of just one missile being fired at a time?

Yes, general Obering says that the system would be effective against what he calls "unsophisticated threat" and that's shorthand for Iran or North Korea when they have one missile or maybe two. But if they use two, or twenty, or 200 or they would try to do it like Russia, which as Pentagon freely admits has so many missiles it could overwhelm even the most futuristic defense system we can dream of, then...(shrugging his shoulders)

Aside from these technical setbacks, do you also see any political problems in trying to deploy the missile defense system in Central and Eastern Europe?

Yes, and it's very obvious the various things that president Putin has done, I can't keep track of how many there have been, but pulling out of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, threatening to pull out of other security agreements, putting their strategic bombers back into the air and flying exercises with them What else? Threatening to attack with their own missiles in Kaliningrad. So he keeps raising the ante, and that is obviously a concern.

And I think another concern is that this system could divide Europe. If Poland requires new special relationship with United States for their protection and the Czech Republic requires the new special relationship with the US for their protection, then you start to wonder what is NATO, what about Article Five of its charter (committing NATO to assist any member who comes under attack), does that have any meaning? So I think that's a matter of concern also.

There are other countries who have signed up for the US missile defense system, like Japan. As a matter of fact, earlier this week the Japanese carried out exercises to see whether they could deploy the shield directly in Tokyo. Look like they are satisfied with the system.

Japan is investing quite heavily in the missile defense, but South Korea has said about a week ago that they are not going to join the overall US defense system. I think that's quite interesting because South Korea and North Korea are right next to each other, but they decided they are going to stick with their sunshine policy and they have kind of said that they are going to do like Canada and not participate in the overall US system.

But Japan has a difficult history with North Korea and it's very difficult for Japanese politicians to just dismiss the threat from North Korea. So Japanese politicians are being quite hawkish about building up missile defenses and that is coming at the expense of Japanese tax-payers. I think that could happen here also. At first you can argue: Well, it's going to be free, Americans are going top pay for it, it'll help defend Europe, it's not going to cost Czech tax-payers anything. But in military matters as in other things there is no free lunch and that's what Japan is discovering.

 After first deploying systems in Japan, the US contractors said: Well, if you really want to be safe, you need more Patriot missiles, you need Aegis destroyers and Aegis cruisers, operated by your forces and so that's what Japan is doing. Japan is buying US Navy ships with missiles on them.

So I think there would be pressures on this country that would be similar if you are worried about the radar site not being safe, why don't you buy some Patriot missiles yourself and put them there and then you'll feel safe. I think very similar kind of thing could happen here if you're not careful.

The Czech Minister of Foreign Affairs Karel Schwarzenberg, whom you have also met here in Prague this week, was quoted saying the negotiations between the Czech and US governments about hosting the proposed radar base on Czech soil could be over by the end of February. What do you think about that?

Well, that's what the Bush administration would like. They want to get concrete board in Poland and here, ideally supported by international agreements so the systems will be deployed. They are working very hard and that is also why general Obering is here.

By the way, will you meet general Obering, since you are here at the same time?

I didn't even know he was going to be here at the same time

But you probably know him very well, don't you?

I know him, yes, yes. I think he is a very nice man. I do know him but I don't expect to see him.

Well, he and some ministry officials at the Czech side, too, were openly questioning your having all the necessary up-to-date information about the missile defense system, pointing out it has now been seven years since you had left Pentagon. So, do you feel you really have all the latest information that you need?

Yes. Is it the same as being inside the Pentagon? No, of course not. But America is a pretty open society and what happens in these tests becomes public very quickly and then the US Congress holds hearings where general Obering and others explain what happened and these hearings are public.

By the way, Pentagon just put out a report yesterday that basically says what I am saying. It's more guarded but it says the same thing. So you don't have to listen to me they themselves say it (i.e. the system in its current form) is not sufficient.

And then they say they don't want the enemy to be able to take out the eyes of the system in Greenland and the UK, so it (i.e. the proposed radar in Brdy) is first to protect these radars, then the US, and only then the US allies in Europe.

So if the radar is built here by this logic, it´s the first thing the enemy would attack, because it's helping to protect these radars. If it's not built here, then the first thing the enemy would attack would be Greenland and Great Britain, where those radars are. But I think the MDA itself is pretty clear about why they want it.