MissileThreat.com

Cooper, Pfaltzgraff, and Berman: Don't Ignore Sea- and Space-Based Missile Defense

October 22, 2007 :: Defense News :: Analysis

An opinion piece by Henry Cooper, Robert Pfaltzgraff and Ilan Berman, calling for a new approach to missile defense, was featured in the October 22 edition of Defense News.  Their article responds to comments by Missile Defense Agency head Lieutenant General Obering made July 23, which dismissed critics who advocate different operational concepts for American defense and appears to equate them with those who oppose missile defense entirely.  The authors criticize the Missile Defense Agency's approach thus far which focuses on ground-based midcourse defenses, which unfortunately neglects sea and space assets which can better intercept missiles and better protect the country's vulnerabilities, often for less money.

For less than 10 percent of the MDA's $10 billion-per-year budget, the Navy has amassed an impressive test record: nine successful intercepts in 11 attempts with its SM-3 interceptor (10 for 12 if the Navy's successful test of its SM-2 Block 4 is also counted). Impressive indeed, compared with the five-for-10 record of the Alaska ground-based interceptor system...At a price tag of just $25 million for software fixes, investing in this expanded capability is something of a no-brainer...Then there is the matter of ship deployment. Of the 18 being given the SM-3 intercept capability, 16 are headed to the Pacific (the six already there are mostly protecting Japan). For just $62 million more, the Navy could begin outfitting another nine of the 80 Aegis ships around the world and deploy a contingent of 11 to defend against terrorists launching Scuds off our East Coast, as well as against Iranian ballistic missiles.

Space defenses are equally critical because they are best positioned to intercept missiles during their weak boost phase of launch, and because the U.S. is increasingly dependent on satellites of all kinds which are themselves susceptible to missile attacks.

As the anti-satellite test carried out by China in January amply demonstrated, a growing number of U.S. adversaries and strategic competitors are seeking to exploit, even dominate, space for military and commercial purposes. If the United States does not protect its interests in space--including through the deployment of missile defenses--we may soon find our security, which is critically dependent on our space systems, at the mercy of nations that have.

 (Article, Link) 

» More stories on: Analysis, Policy

» Missile system details for: Aegis Ship-Based BMD, Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI)

China ASAT Test Exposed U.S. Vulnerabilities

October 18, 2007 :: Spacewar.com :: News

At a change of command ceremony at the U.S. Strategic Command, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates observed that the January 11 Chinese anti-satellite test revealed the U.S.'s current vulnerabilities in space, and pointed out again the need for better defended satellites.  In the test, China destroyed one of its own weather satellites in low Earth orbit using an anti-satellite weapon aboard a ballistic missile.  "It is through space we monitor the weapons we already know exist," Gates said. "It is through space we can track adversaries attempting to acquire these weapons and then do something about it. It is through space that our troops and our leadership monitor the battlefield and communicate with each other. Therefore, it is space we must protect, especially as we expand its use." (Article, Link) 

» More stories on: China, Policy

Kimball: Of Missiles and Missile Defenses

October 8, 2007 :: Arms Control Today :: Analysis

Daryl G. Kimball, writing for the October edition of Arms Control Today, criticized current missile defense plans and instead argues for a new strategy to reduce the threat posed by offensive missiles. Missile defense poses serious problems, Kimball argues, because "even if [they] can be developed and pass operationally realistic testing, foes can always counter by building sufficient numbers of offensive ballistic missiles to overwhelm a system." Instead, the U.S. should instead focus on closer collaboration with Russia to reduce offensive weapon stockpiles and prevent them from increasing their nuclear stockpiles should the U.S. deploy a missile defense system. Additionally, the U.S. should focus on preventing short and medium range missiles, both because the technology is better developed and because those defenses are less provocative to other global powers like Russia. Lastly, Kimball recommends the U.S. work to enforce and expand the support for the International Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation, which "obliges states to exchange information on missile holdings and testing and exercise restraint with respect to their ballistic missile programs, could become the blueprint for a binding set of limitations on the most destabilizing types of missiles." (Article, Link) 

» More stories on: Analysis, Policy

Franks Urges Russia to Join Another Race

September 5, 2007 :: RIA-Novosti :: News

Responding to Russian rhetoric that American and NATO efforts to construct missile defenses in Europe will precipate an "arms race," U.S. Congressman Trent Franks, one of three co-chairs of the new Missile Defense Caucus in the House of Representatives, has challenged Russia to join in a missile defense "race" with the United States.  Franks was the keynote speaker on September 3 at the Multinational Ballistic Missile Defense Conference in Maastricht, the Netherlands.  Congressman Franks challenged Russia to complete the best missile defense system:

 

My challenge to the leaders and people of Russia is this: There was a time in history when America and Russia's predecessor, the Soviet Union, had a massive arms race and built thousands of missiles and nuclear warheads that have ever since cast a foreboding shadow of fear across humanity.  But times have changed. It is now technologically possible to build systems to defend our citizens against nuclear missiles and therefore, to diminish their military and strategic value and, ultimately, their purpose for existence.  So, to Russia I would say, let us have another race, and let it be one of cooperation or of competition as you choose. Let us cooperate or compete to see whether both of us or which of us can develop the best missile defense systems to protect our own children and all of the children of the world from falling under the shadow of nuclear Jihad.  Let us together, turn Mutually Assured Destruction into Mutually Assured Survival for our children and our children's children. This is my Challenge to Russia.

 

Full text of Franks' remarks below: (More »»») 

» Text of Trent Franks Keynote Address

» More stories on: Policy, Russia

Perry Deemphasizes Missile Threat

July 18, 2007 :: Defense News :: News

Former U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry testified before a House subcommittee on July 18 to discuss U.S. nuclear policy and missile defense.  Perry said that he believed the greatest threat to the U.S. comes from terrorists detonating a nuclear weapon in an American city.  Such an attack could result in thousands of deaths, billions of dollars in damage to the U.S. economy and a global recession.  Perry recommended that to reduce this threat, the U.S. focus its energy on reducing its nuclear stockpile dramatically in conjunction with the Russians, and strengthen non-proliferation efforts and security around nuclear facilities abroad.  Perry furthermore criticized the current emphasis on missile defense, stating "Terrorists would not use a ballistic missile to deliver their bomb, they would use a truck or freighter."  Other testimony encouraged the U.S. to maintain a healthy and robust nuclear policy, that would inspire confidence from non-nuclear allies such as Japan and Saudi Arabia.  Should the U.S. reduce its stockpiles precipitously, other countries may question whether the U.S. could protect them and "go nuclear," foiling non-proliferation efforts. (Article, Link) 

» More stories on: Policy

Congressmen Launch New Bipartisan Missile Defense Caucus

June 28, 2007 :: News

On June 28, Republican and Democratic Members of Congress held a press conference to launch the Congressional Missile Defense Caucus.  Membership in the Caucus entails committing to a mission statement, which is included below. The purpose of the Caucus is to stress the urgency of funding, building, and modernizing a robust missile defense and to address the threats posed by terrorists and rogue nations developing greater ballistic missile capabilities.  Co-chairs include Republican Trent Franks (AZ-02), Democrat Jim Marshall (GA-08), Republican Pete Sessions (TX-32), and Republican Doug Lamborn (CO-05).  Present at the press conference were Congressmen Franks, Marshall, Lamborn, Todd Akin (MO-02), Louis Gohmert (TX-01), and Stevan Pearce (NM-02).

 

At the press conference, Congressman Franks said, "Two things must be recognized since Ronald Reagan introduced the concept of missile defense. First, in a post 9-11 world terrorists have the will to devastate the United States and they are not deterred by the threat of overwhelming retaliation, which is the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. Second, the great American minds in the scientific community have proven that this is no longer a mere theory; our systems work and all we need is the collective will to fund, develop, and operate this technology. Sixteen of the last 17 flight tests have been successful, there have been Aegis intercepts, THAAD intercepts, successful in-flight tests of the Airborne Laser Targeting System, and a successful intercept of a target with a long-range interceptor. These are incredible demonstrations of what the tenacity and ingenuity of our American scientific and military minds can create. 

 

"We do not know when or if our enemies will launch short or long-range missiles or perhaps even an electromagnetic pulse attack aimed at harming our friends, warfighters or those living in the continental United States. Accordingly, we must continue to modernize our systems, stay ahead of the threat, and develop a robust and layered missile defense that will be capable of interdicting missiles in their boost, midcourse, and terminal phases of flight."

 

Members who have committed to the Mission Statement are: Republicans Trent Franks (AZ-02) (Chair), Pete Sessions (TX-32) (Co-Chair), Doug Lamborn (CO-05) (Co-Chair), Duncan Hunter (CA-52), Peter King (NY-03), Eric Cantor (VA-07), Dana Rohbacher (CA-46), Kenny Marchant (TX-24), Thaddeas McCotter (MI-11), Mike Rogers (AL-03), Robin Hayes (NC-08), Zach Wamp (TN-03), Lee Terry (NE-02), Adam Putnam (FL-12), John Kline (MN-02), Marilyn Musgrave ( CO-04), Cathy McMorris Rogers (WA-05), Ray Lahood (IL-18), Stevan Pearce (NM-02), Todd Akin (MO-02), Wally Herger (CA-02), Roger Wicker (MS-01), Dave Weldon (FL-15), Louis Gohmert (TX-01), Tom Price (GA-06), Howard "Buck" McKeon (CA-25), Phil English (PA-03), Jim Jordan (OH-04), Rick Renzi (AZ-01), John Barrett (SC-03), Virginia Foxx (NC-05), Ric Keller (FL-08), John Culberson (TX-07), Roscoe Bartlett (MD-06), Randy Forbes (VA-04), and Democrats Jim Marshall (GA-08) (Co-Chair), Robert E. "Bud" Cramer (AL-05), and Henry Cuellar (TX-28).

 

Text of the House Mission Statement:  

 

While America prevailed in the Cold War, the principal military threat from this struggle unfortunately did not vanish along with the Soviet Union - ballistic missiles capable of delivering extraordinary damage to the United States.

As members of this Caucus, we:

1) Realize that rogue states and America's strategic military rivals continue to build faster, longer, and more sophisticated ballistic missiles capable of striking the United States;

2) Understand that a ballistic missile threat may also be posed by non-state terrorists;

3) Recognize that our enemies and rivals are exploring space-based technologies to gain a strategic military advantage over the United States;

4) Refuse to allow American foreign policy to be constrained by the ballistic missile capabilities of our enemies, and;

5) Remain committed to providing for the defense of the American people, our warfighters and our national interests by supporting a layered and robust missile defense that utilizes land, air, sea, and space.

 (Link) 

» More stories on: Policy

Spring on Measuring the Presidential Candidates

May 31, 2007 :: The Heritage Foundation :: Analysis

 (Article, Link) 

» More stories on: Analysis, Policy

Survey of Adjutants General Reveals States Unprepared for EMP, Missile Attack

March 7, 2007 :: Analysis

America's state-based emergency responders are not actively preparing against an attack on the United States by electromagnetic pulse (EMP), according to the Adjutants General who oversee National Guard units throughout the country. Such an attack could disable most of the nation's electric power grid, telecommunications, automobiles, and computers with a single, high altitude, nuclear blast. An EMP attack is an increasingly likely possibility as ballistic missile and nuclear technology continue to proliferate.

A survey of state-based Adjutants General throughout the United States, entitled Missile Defense and the Role of the States, was conducted jointly over the last year by the Anchorage-based Institute of the North and the Claremont Institute of Claremont, California.

The survey, entitled Missile Defense and the Role of the States, was conducted jointly over the last year by the Anchorage-based Institute of the North and the Claremont Institute of Claremont, California. The survey's questions were sent to Adjutants General of all 50 states, with more than half of the states' Adjutants General responding to the questionnaire.

Although 96% of state Adjutants General indicated significant concern over an EMP attack, the majority had done little or no analysis of the impact of an overhead EMP attack to potential targets in their particular state. Likewise, most admitted little or no preparation in the areas of training, equipment/EMP hardening, and exercises/procedure.

This finding differs with a 2004 recommendation by the congressionally mandated Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from EMP Attack, which urged states to coordinate with the federal government to prepare an emergency response plan against EMP: "Working with state authorities and private-sector organizations, the Department of Homeland Security should develop draft protocols for implementation by emergency and other government responders following EMP attack, Red Team these extensively, and then institutionalize validated protocols through issuance of standards, training, and exercises."

An electromagnetic pulse is created by detonating a nuclear warhead between 40 and 400 kilometers above the earth's surface. The electromagnetic field created by the nuclear detonation at that altitude creates a "pulse" which can disrupt and disable electronic computers, electric power, telephone and information systems over a significant geographic area. Furthermore, a space-based nuclear blast could also disable satellites that would enable the U.S. to identify the source of and respond to such an attack.

The 2004 EMP report noted that, "...one or a few high-altitude nuclear detonations can produce EMP effects that can potentially disrupt or damage electronic and electrical systems over much of the United States, virtually simultaneously, at a time determined by an adversary." The executive summary of the EMP Commission report is viewable online at www.missilethreat.com/empreport.

The Institute of the North/Claremont Institute survey indicates that National Guard leaders would like increased briefings on the missile threat in general and the EMP threat in particular. While 74% of Adjutants General had been briefed on the threat from Russian ballistic missiles, only 44% had received briefings on the threat posed by ship-borne or "stateless" missiles, and 41% indicated that they received no regular briefings regarding ballistic missile threats.

Survey results also highlight overwhelming agreement (93%) that the United States needs an effective missile defense system. A majority of survey respondents supported a "layered" missile defense, composed of ground-, sea-, air-, and space-based interceptors. Furthermore, 59% of participants stated that they envisioned their state's National Guard having a role in the development, testing, manning, and deployment of missile defense systems which could prevent an EMP attack overhead.

None of the Adjutants General surveyed indicated that they were actively involved in a formal planning process on EMP attack. The survey authors suggest policy options urging states to direct contingency planning in which they create their own realistic scenarios that demonstrate the potential effects of cruise and ballistic missiles, weapons of mass destruction, and EMP attack, thus increasing state preparedness. States are also encouraged to coordinate defense efforts with the Department of Homeland Security.

"A question state policy makers may want to ask themselves is, ‘Does our state have an EMP contingency plan?,'" said Mead Treadwell of the Institute of the North: "If not, we should get on with it, as the EMP Commission recommends."

"The United States Congress has continued the EMP Commission's work since it issued its report in 2004," said Tom Karako of the Claremont Institute. "Their report was published the same day as the 9/11 Commission, but it has been too long ignored."

Survey results and a summary report were mailed to state governors and Adjutants General for their review. Based on the survey's findings, the Institute of the North and the Claremont Institute plan to follow-up by publishing a regular newsletter highlighting ways in which state military leaders and policy makers can raise awareness and increase involvement in their state. Both institutes have been working closely together for over ten years on policy issues related to the strategic defense of the United States. Their goal is to help state and local officials and citizens understand the issues related to ballistic missile defense.

The project was initiated by Mead Treadwell, senior fellow at the Institute of the North, and Tom Karako, editor of www.missilethreat.com, an online project of the Claremont Institute. Both are members of an independent working group which recently published the report, Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, and the Twenty-First Century.

  (Link) 

» Press Release for Missile Defense and the States project report

» Project Report: Missile Defense and the States, a project of the Institute of the North and the Claremont Institute

» More stories on: Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Weapons, Analysis, Policy

IBD on the “Spirit of Reykjavik”

October 11, 2006 :: Investor’s Business Daily :: Analysis

This week marks the twentieth anniversary of President Ronald Reagan’s bold stand against trading missile defense for an arms treaty, writes Investor’s Business Daily in an editorial entitled “Reykjavik Forever.” In October 1986, during a meeting between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland, the Soviet premier unexpectedly offered an unprecedented reduction in nuclear weapons. His price was that the U.S. abandon all but the most rudimentary research on the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which Reagan had called “a new hope for our children in the 21st century.” According to contemporary accounts, Reagan gathered his papers, stood, and told Gorbachev, “No way.” Criticism and derision followed immediately. U.N. Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar compared SDI to France’s disastrous Maginot Line in World War II. In a New York Times op-ed, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), said “Star Wars is a physical and technological impossibility,” adding that “it is difficult to believe that any other president since World War II would have ignored the opportunity that knocked at Reykjavik.” Claiborne Pell (D-RI), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, lamented, “This is a sad day for mankind.” Yet as Investor’s Business Daily points out, “history proved the critics all wrong—including the scores of scientists who knew so much better than this simpleton who somehow landed in the White House.” In several years, Gorbachev was gone, and the Soviet Union imploded. At the time of Reagan’s death, Gennady Gerasimov, senior Soviet foreign ministry spokesman admitted that SDI had been “a very successful blackmail.”
        As for SDI, Investor’s Business Daily adds that “today, U.S. interceptor missiles that can stop incoming nuclear warheads in space—Teddy Kennedy’s ‘physical and technological impossibility’—are an operational reality.” This is only partially true. The U.S. has deployed the ground-based midcourse defense system in Alaska and California, which recently intercepted a live target missile. Reagan’s vision for strategic defenses, however, has yet to come. The U.S. has not yet deployed the necessary space-based missile defense assets, such as Brilliant Pebbles, capable of targeting and destroying long-range ballistic missiles in mid-trajectory. Most of the U.S., including the East Coast, remains vulnerable to ballistic missile attack, as does the entire homeland from a ship-launched short range ballistic missile against a coastal city. On the twentieth anniversary of Reykjavik, while celebrating Reagan’s bold stand against trading away missile defense, Americans should also ask when the U.S. will implement the former President’s full vision for the strategic defense of the nation.  (Article, Link) 

» More stories on: Space-Based Systems, Russia, Policy, Analysis

» Missile system details for: Brilliant Pebbles

Congressman Duncan Hunter Letter to President Calls for Immediate Programmatic Additions to Missile Defenses

October 10, 2006 :: U.S. House of Representatives :: News

Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, yesterday sent an important letter to President George Bush calling for immediate programmatic additions to U.S. missile defenses. Such systems, he stated, should be “capable of addressing the full range of North Korean missile-based threats to the United States, our deployed forces, and our allies.” First and foremost, the U.S. must “accelerate further the schedule for fielding Aegis ballistic missile defense capabilities,” either solely Standard Missile-3 interceptors or an appropriate combination of both SM-2 and SM-3 interceptors. Second, the U.S. must “maintain an optimal air defense capability on the peninsula” by deploying sufficient numbers of ground-based Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) systems. Third, the U.S. must “accelerate the deployment of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities,” focusing on Northeast Asia. Congressman Hunter offered to serve as an advocate in Congress for any reprogramming requests submitted by the White House to carry out these critical national security objectives.

        The Congressman’s recommendations are similar to those put forth by the Independent Working Group in its recent report, Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, and the Twenty-First Century, which strongly advocates the expansion of sea-based missile defenses, as well as the strengthening of missile defense collaboration with vital allies such as Japan.

        Full text of Duncan Hunter letter to President Bush: (More »»») 

» Read the 2007 report: The Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, and the Twenty-First Century (8 MB)

» More stories on: Policy, North Korea, Japan

» Missile system details for: Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3), Aegis Ship-Based BMD

Total Records: 182	« 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 » »|