Barnes on Missile Defense and Electoral Politics
August 1, 2006 :: The Weekly Standard :: Analysis
An election year is the perfect time to generate national support for a robust, multi-layered missile defense shield, writes Fred Barnes in The Weekly Standard. Polls have shown that the American public overwhelmingly supports missile defense, even more so given North Korea’s recent tests launches and Iran’s relentless drive to acquire nuclear weapons. Democrats, who kept missile defense spending at anemic levels during the Clinton years and have attempted to block deployments under President Bush, are vulnerable on the issue. Yet most Americans are not aware that if Democrats capture either the House or Senate, funding for missile defense may be dangerously curtailed and deployments postponed. To avert this, missile defense must become a major campaign issue for Republicans and the Bush administration. “The issue can be laid out very simply,” writes Barnes. “We need robust missile defense for the safety of America; Democrats are standing in the way; vote Republican.” (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy
Pentagon Studies Linking THAAD X-Band Radar to Sea-Based Interceptors
July 30, 2006 :: Jane's Information Group :: News
The U.S. Army is considering ways to create an “instant” missile defense capability by combining forward-based X-band radars on land with sea-based Standard Missile-3 interceptors, reports the August 2 edition of Jane’s Defence Weekly. According to Lieutenant General Larry Dodgen, head of the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defence Command, the Army is looking at the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) radar as a “deployable asset.” The forward-based X-band radar is a highly mobile, land-based, radar system that was designed for deployment in strategic areas overseas in order to provide advance warning of potential ballistic threats from locations near a missile’s launch. (Link)
» More stories on: Policy
» Missile system details for: Forward-Based X-Band Radar-Transportable, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
NORAD to Leave Cheyenne Mountain
July 29, 2006 :: Washington Post :: News
The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) will transfer its surveillance operations from Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado, to an office building near Peterson Air Force Base several miles away. The Washington Post reports that Cheyenne Mountain will be placed in “warm standby,” which means that it could be reopened in hours should the need arise. Despite the fact that the Pentagon spent about $700 million in early warning upgrades to Cheyenne Mountain following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Navy Admiral Timothy J. Keating, commander of NORAD and the U.S. Northern Command, created a group in February 2006 to consider moving the NORAD surveillance operation to Peterson AFB. The study recommended the move for operational and budgetary reasons, said a Northern Command statement yesterday. The purpose for housing the NORAD center underground was of course to shield the vital center from strategic attack.
According to The Washington Post, “the military concluded that it no longer needed to be concerned about an intercontinental nuclear missile”—a remarkable statement. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Budget, Nuclear Weapons, Policy
Kennedy Participates in Roundtable on Missile Defense Policy
July 27, 2006 :: Center for Security Policy :: Events
Brian T. Kennedy, president of the Claremont Institute, participated in a roundtable discussion on U.S. missile defense policy on Tuesday, July 25, in Washington, D.C. The roundtable discussion was organized by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy, and featured leading U.S. congressmen, government officials, and missile defense experts. The discussion addressed two main questions: What are the needed enhancements in the U.S. missile defense shield, and how can they be most efficiently and cost-effectively accomplished?
Participating in the roundtable were Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who gave the keynote address; Under Secretary of State Robert Joseph, and Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces and Policy Dr. Keith Payne, who both discussed the emerging nuclear and ballistic missile threat; Missile Defense Agency Director Lieutenant General “Trey” Obering, who discussed whether or not the Bush administration’s missile defense policy is adequate; Congressman Curt Weldon (R-PA), who gave the luncheon address; and Ambassador Henry Cooper, who joined Brian Kennedy in a discussion of what additional steps the U.S. should be taking in the development of a missile defense shield. The roundtable highlighted the recent Independent Working Group report: Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, and the Twenty-First Century. (Link)
» 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
Congressman Franks Speaks on Missile Defense, IWG Report
July 27, 2006 :: Analysis
Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, today delivered the keynote address at a Heritage Foundation panel discussion on the current threat of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, and the recently released report by the Independent Working Group. “Americans already believe that this country has a missile defense system set up that will defend them against weapons from North Korea, Iran, or even perhaps Russia or China. They are sorely mistaken,” Franks said. “Our enemies already have the will to use nuclear weapons to cause death and destruction of catastrophic proportions to the United States. All they need is the means to do it.”
Congressman Franks strongly endorsed the newly released report by the Independent Working Group (IWG), entitled Missile Defense, the Space Relationship and the Twenty-First Century, which provides a roadmap for the development and deployment of a robust, layered, and effective U.S. missile defense shield. “With the genius of America’s scientific community, there is no doubt in my mind that we have the means to defend ourselves,” Franks noted. “All we need now is the political will to carry out what the American people demand of us: to protect and defend this nation and her sovereignty.”
Other members of the panel included IWG members Baker Spring of the Heritage Foundation, Jeff Kueter of the George Marshall Institute, and Dr. Robert Pfaltzgraff of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis and co-chair of the Independent Working Group. (Article, Link)
» 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
Coyle Takes Aim at Brilliant Pebbles
July 26, 2006 :: UPI :: Analysis
Philip Coyle, senior advisor at the Center for Defense Information, was recently quoted in the UPI on the issue of space-based missile defenses and in particular, the Brilliant Pebbles defense system. “The idea was that a small satellite with good brain [sic] that would see enemy missiles and dash off after it, hit it and knock it down,” he said, but noted that such a concept would have required numerous satellites, perhaps as many as 1,000 to be effective. “You can’t have one interceptor parked over North Korea,” he argued. “You need another to take its place.” Coyle also questioned the monetary feasibility of the program. “It would be, by all measures, very expensive. And it’s still problematic as to whether it would work. They’ve been projecting [costs] for at least 20 years and it doesn’t seem to happen.”
Would Brilliant Pebbles work? Coyle does not mention that Brilliant Pebbles had successfully completed its simulation stage and was ready to move to the proof-of-concept, prototype, and performance testing stages when it was effectively starved of funding as the Clinton administration came to power. Nor does he mention that in 1994 NASA launched a deep-space probe mission known as “Clementine,” constructed with first-generation Brilliant Pebbles hardware. The mission, which cost $80 million, effectively “space-qualified” Brilliant Pebbles technology, even though the missile defense program had already been eliminated.
Would Brilliant Pebbles be too expensive? The newly released report by the Independent Working Group entitled Missile Defense, the Space Relationship and the Twenty-First Century—the report cited by the UPI piece—puts the total cost of a 1,000-satellite constellation of Brilliant Pebbles at $16 billion, based on the fully approved Defense Acquisition Board plan from 1991. The figure includes the costs of developing, testing, deploying, and operating Brilliant Pebbles over a 20-year period using a low-to-moderate risk, event-driven acquisition schedule. Many would agree that $16 billion dollars is a small price to pay for the protection of the U.S. and its allies from ballistic missile attack and nuclear devastation. (Article, Link)
» Read the 2007 report: The Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, and the Twenty-First Century (8 MB)
» More stories on: Allies, Policy, Space-Based Systems
» Missile system details for: Brilliant Pebbles
MDA Officials Complete Visit to Czech Republic, Possible Decision in August
July 26, 2006 :: News
U.S. experts from the Missile Defense Agency have completed their inspection of three military sites in the Czech Republic that could host a possible U.S. missile defense site, reports the Czech News Agency (CTK). According to Jan Pejsek, a Czech Defense Ministry spokesman, the U.S. experts concluded that all three locations—Libava in North Moravia, Brdy in Central Bohemia, and Boletice in South Bohemia—would be suitable for the deployment of U.S. missile defense assets. The team spent one week examining the three sites, making note of the existing infrastructure, transportation and communication options, and geological and water conditions. Defense Minister Karel Kuehnl told CTK that the results of the U.S. visit could be released at the end of August. If MDA decides that it wants to establish a base in the Czech Republic, the Czech government and parliament would first have to approve the construction of the base. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Allies, Policy
Missile Defense “Concept of Operations” Plan Perhaps Ready by Fall
July 25, 2006 :: Reuters :: News
Reuters reports that the Pentagon is working on a “concept of operations” plan that maps out how regional commanders would be able to use the U.S. missile defense system. Lieutenant General Larry Dodgen, commander of the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, told industry executives and congressional aides today that he expects the plan to be completed by October or November 2006. Dodgen added that further improvements to U.S. missile defense might include the deployment of additional interceptor missiles and sensors, and further development of the system’s capabilities, including better defenses against cruise missiles. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Policy
Senate Eliminates Funding for Conventionally Armed Trident-2 Missiles
July 25, 2006 :: Global Security Newswire :: News
On Thursday, July 20, the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee cut funding for the Navy’s Conventional Trident Modification Program, a Bush administration plan to arm Trident-2 ballistic missiles deployed on submarines with conventional, as opposed to nuclear weapons. Global Security Newswire reports that the committee cut all but $5 million of the $127 million in initial funding for fiscal year 2007. It directed the remaining $5 million to merely fund a National Academy Sciences study, due March 15, 2007, that would analyze the military’s need for such a system, and recommend alternatives. Supporters of the Conventional Trident Modification Program have argued that it would give the U.S. a global strike weapon against elusive targets in the war on terrorism. Opponents have argued that such a weapon could cause Russia, China, or another third party to mistakenly perceive a U.S. nuclear missile attack. In a report accompanying the defense appropriation bills, the Senate Appropriations Committee wrote its belief that “fundamental issues about the use of this weapon must be addressed prior to investing in this effort.” It added: “It is not clear that other potentially less provocative alternatives, such as land and air-based options, have been considered.” (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Budget, Policy
Kennedy on the Common Sense of Missile Defense
July 22, 2006 :: Investor’s Business Daily :: Writings
Brian T. Kennedy, president of the Claremont Institute, explains in Investor’s Business Daily why missile defense is a common sense necessity in the age of rogue nations such as North Korea. Kennedy notes that while most U.S. policymakers seem to believe that Kim Jong Il would never launch a missile at the U.S., such a scenario exists. He sketches out a plausible scenario that Kim Jong Il might arrive at the conclusion that a nuclear attack against the U.S. might not even bring about a retaliatory strike from Washington:
Imagine Kim Jong Il calculated that he could launch a nuclear missile against Seattle—well within range of his Taepodong-2 missile. He would first recall that the U.S. did not use nuclear weapons during the Korean War, Vietnam War, Iran hostage crisis, bombing of Marines in Beirut, terrorist attacks by al-Qaida throughout the 1990s or the 9-11 assault.
In each case, measured military action was taken, great effort was made not to endanger civilians and a central concern was not provoking hostilities with China or Russia. Second, Kim Jong Il might be convinced that China will defend the North Koreans as it has in the past. So what would happen?
Assume China does move to protect the North Koreans in their folly. Chinese President Hu Jintao calls President Bush and declares that the North Korean attack on Seattle was an awful crime, but that any nuclear retaliation will be seen by the Chinese as an attack on China itself. He pledges to help the U.S. rebuild Seattle and promises to deal harshly with the North Koreans.
Likewise, President Vladimir Putin calls to second his Chinese counterpart: Russia, too, will assist in rebuilding and offers to help negotiate a cease-fire—claiming that the last thing the world needs is a nuclear attack by the U.S. on North Korea….
It is possible, perhaps likely, that the U.S. would launch a counterattack using nuclear weapons. This would fulfill the premise of mutually assured destruction, and require a large-scale nuclear attack to destroy the North Korean regime and its military capabilities—especially since the prospect of a North Korean invasion of the South would become a real possibility under such uncertain circumstances.
But would the U.S. attack if it meant a possible nuclear war with China and Russia? Bush is a courageous and patriotic man. But to avoid a full-scale nuclear war and the annihilation of millions of Americans, is it possible that a U.S. president might not retaliate using nuclear weapons and instead accept such an attack as an unfortunate catastrophe that might lead to the unthinkable nuclear war between the superpowers?
(Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, North Korea, Policy
