What’s included:

• Alternative one:
• Looks at the effect of land-, sea-, and air-based interceptors and sensors on
• Integrated ground tests.
• System Integrated Flight Test (SIFT) Scenario 1: Single weapon with an intercept. The launch of an interceptor from land-, sea-, or air-based platform against one target.
• SIFT Scenario 2:  Multiple weapons with multiple intercepts. The launch of multiple interceptors from multiple weapons platforms (land-, sea-, air-, and space-based) at up to two targets with intercepts.  The two targets may be fired from one biome and the interceptors may be launched from the same or different biomes. 
• Allows for space sensors, but no space-based weapons platforms.
• Alternative two:
• Looks at the additional effect space-based interceptors (SBIs) would have, in addition to land-, sea-, and air-based interceptors and sensors on:
• Integrated ground tests
• SIFT Scenario 1:  Single weapon with intercept.  The launch of interceptors from space-based platforms with an intercept.
• SIFT Scenario 2: Multiple weapons with multiple intercepts. The launch of multiple interceptors from multiple weapons platforms (land-, sea-, air-, and space-based) at up to two targets with intercepts. The two targets may be fired from one biome and the interceptors may be launched from the same or different biomes.    Under Alternative 2, the analysis assumes that the launch of a SBI would replace a land-, sea-, or air-based weapon launch or laser activation. Therefore, it’s portrayed as being better for the environment (causing less debris/chemicals potentially being spilled/disrupting habitats).
• “If Alternative 2 were selected, additional environmental analysis could be needed as the technologies intended to be used became more defined and robust.”  (4-116)
• No-action alternative
• Per MDA, would leave the United States defenseless against attacks
• “Individual components would continue to be tested to determine the adequacy of their stand-alone capabilities, but would not be subjected to integrated system-wide tests.”  (ES-2-3)
• In addition, “C2BMC architecture would be designed around the needs of individual components and would not be designed to manage an integrated system.” (ES-2-3) 

Two ways in which carrying out Alternative 2:

• A new exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) will likely be designed.
• Near-Field Infrared Experiment (NFIRE) is mentioned in conjunction with the new EKV being built for SBI.  MDA officials have repeatedly said that NFIRE was solely to be used to gather data on targets in-flight and was not related to a space weapons platform. 

Orbital debris:

• Included as a resource consideration “because of the likelihood of orbital debris occurring from various launch and testing activities and its potential for impact to health and safety and the environment.” (ES-12)
• On-orbit too short an amount of time to merit a real threat to space assets.
• Will burn up upon re-entry; even if doesn’t, likelihood of hitting someone/thing on the ground pretty small. 

Other debris (rocket fragments, fuel):

• Debris that hits the ocean will quickly be dissipated and thus not greatly upset the ecosystem.
• Debris from impacts will most likely follow a specially constructed footprint and thus not disturb those on the ground.
• Debris from spills/intercepts in the air will generally dissipate before it hits the ground and thus not greatly upset the ecosystem. 

International missile defense:  

• “MDA may also develop test beds in other areas such as the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, or outside the continental U.S. to support testing of BMDS components in those areas.” (2-28)
• “The scope of the BMDS includes some testing and potential deployment at locations abroad…However, it is expected that the extent of the BMDS presence in other countries would be less than in the continental U.S.” (4-20)
• “Because NEPA and other environmental laws generally do not apply to OCONUS activities, various EOs and other DoD directives and instructions have been implemented.” (4-111) 

BMDS: 

• “The successful demonstration of the BMDS would rely on a robust testing program aimed at producing a credible system characterization, verification, and assessment data.” (ES-7)
• “Tests of the layered, integrated BMDS through increasingly realistic system integration tests through 2010 and beyond.” (ES-7)

BUT “Although the operational life of some BMDS technologies can be estimated, it is difficult to estimate for many proposed technologies given both the uncertainty of their development and deployment schedule as well as the potential for technological upgrades and service life extensions.” (1-10)