WSJ on the Taep’o-dong Democrats’ Opposition to Missile Defense
July 21, 2006 :: The Wall Street Journal :: Analysis
Today’s lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal lambastes “Taep’o-dong Democrats” for their continued opposition to missile defense, even after North Korea’s test launch of its long-range Taep’o-dong 2 ballistic missile. The editorial provides a succinct history of Democratic opposition to missile defense, dating back to 1983 when Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) dismissed President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative as a fanciful “Star Wars” program. Ten years later, with President Clinton in the Oval Office, Democrats starved SDI of funding and eliminated promising research and development initiatives such as Brilliant Pebbles. Congressional Republicans managed to keep the program alive as part of their Contract with America, although they were forced to spend the greater part of the 1990s battling the Clinton administration on the issue. When President Bush withdrew the U.S. from the defunct 1972 ABM Treaty, thus allowing the U.S. to develop missile defense assets to meet the challenges of the post-Cold War era, Democrats stood in firm opposition. Former Vice President Al Gore had actually campaigned in 2000 to keep the treaty; Senator Joe Biden (D-DW) predicted that dropping out of the treaty to build missile defenses would turn the U.S. into “a kind of bully nation”; and Senator John Kerry (D-MA) warned that “we must not set aside the logic of deterrence that has kept us safe for 40 years.” Democrats remained staunchly opposed to missile defense even after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Just this year, Representative John Tierney (D-MA) attempted to cut the Pentagon’s missile defense budget by over 50 percent, a proposal that won the support of more over half of his Democratic colleagues, including would-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). This June, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) attempted to cut off all funding for the ground-based interceptor program, which was recently activated to defend the U.S. against a potential North Korean missile attack.
The Wall Street Journal rightfully takes Democrats to task for maintaining their rigid anti-BMD positions, even after North Korea’s test launching of its long-range Taep’o-dong 2 ballistic missile, which is capable of hitting the continental U.S., the growing nuclear threat from Iran, and the further proliferation of missile technology from rouge nations such as Iran and Syria to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. The editorial correctly states that, although no defense system is perfect, the U.S. BMD shield has made significant progress in recent SM-3, PAC-3, and THAAD tests, provides a limited defense against North Korean missiles, adds to the credibility of the U.S. deterrent, reassures our allies abroad, and enhances U.S. influence on the global stage. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, North Korea, Policy
» Missile details: Tien Ma 1
Lettow on Reagan Legacy on Nuclear and Missile Defense Policies
July 21, 2006 :: The Heritage Foundation :: Analysis
Paul Lettow, author of Ronald Reagan and His Quest to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (New York: Random House, 2005), delivered a speech yesterday at the Heritage Foundation on the legacy of Ronald Reagan on the subject of U.S. nuclear weapons policy. Lettow discussed the former President’s central role as leader, visionary, strategist, diplomat, and negotiator. In particular, he touched on Reagan’s unrivalled championing of the 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which proposed to use ground-based and space-based systems to protect the U.S. from ballistic missile attack. An excerpt:
Reagan saw SDI as a means of accomplishing his objective of a nuclear-free world. An effective missile defense, he believed, could render ballistic missiles “impotent and obsolete.” In his eyes, such a defense would make not just ballistic missiles but all nuclear weapons negotiable, and would spur talks, first with the Soviet Union and then with the other nuclear powers, that would result in the elimination of all nuclear arms. He thought that the United States could then share a defense system, and that an “internationalized” defense would serve to guarantee security in a nuclear-free world. None of Reagan’s advisers adhered to his vision of SDI as the catalyst for and guarantor of a world without nuclear weapons. But from the inception of the initiative through the rest of his presidency, Reagan held unwaveringly to that vision of SDI.
(Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Nuclear Weapons, Policy
Democrats Stand By 1998 Filibuster of Missile Defense
July 17, 2006 :: Human Events :: Analysis
In light of North Korea’s test launch of a Taep’o-dong 2 long-range ballistic missile, Human Events recently interviewed several leading Democratic senators who had filibustered the 1998 American Missile Protection Act, which had called for deploying a national missile defense system “as soon as technologically possible.” At the time, the Democrats argued that deploying a missile defense required abrogating the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which they believed to be a key component of nuclear arms control. Human Events wanted to know whether their views had changed following recent events.
Senator Joe Biden (D-DW) stated that he did not regret his decision to filibuster, reaffirming his belief that “missile defense is not the answer.” He added that the U.S. could always destroy North Korea’s missiles with a preemptive strike, illustrating how a lack of missile defense can force such options onto the table. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) stood by his 1998 vote as well, declaring that “Star Wars wouldn’t make us any safer today, because we spent a hundred billion dollars and it still wouldn’t work.” Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) added that “the headlong rush to get anything going might have ironically harmed our ability to proceed.” Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) also stated that he did not regret his vote. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Policy
Congressman Hunter Vows to Accelerate Missile Defense Efforts
July 11, 2006 :: Navy Times :: News
Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, vowed Tuesday to increase U.S. missile defense spending, in light of North Korea’s recent test launch of a Taep’o-dong 2 long-range ballistic missile, reports Navy Times.
Congressman Hunter acknowledged that he had no specific dollar amount in mind, and he did not mention where the increased funds might best be used. Nevertheless, he suggested that there is still time to alter the 2007 defense authorization bill, which is now pending before a House-Senate conference committee. He added that the cost of increased missile defense assets would not necessarily require cutting other defense programs. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Budget, Policy
Kennedy on ABC News, Calling for Urgency to Missile Defenses
July 6, 2006 :: ABC News :: News
Brian T. Kennedy, president of the Claremont Institute, discussed U.S. missile defense policy today on ABC News. Following North Korea’s launch of the Taep’o-dong 2 long-range ballistic missile yesterday, Kennedy urged the Bush administration to move forward on developing and deploying effective missile defenses. “The President is very well intentioned when it comes to missile defense. It’s just that we’re not putting the resources toward it quickly enough,” he said. (Link)
» Watch Brian T. Kennedy on ABC News
» More stories on: North Korea, Policy
» Missile details: Tien Ma 1
Spring on North Korea Options
July 6, 2006 :: The Heritage Foundation :: Analysis
Baker Spring of the Heritage Foundation yesterday laid out a comprehensive set of military capabilities for countering North Korea’s growing missile threat. He noted that these capabilities should be seen as part of a larger “damage limitation strategy” that would lessen both the likelihood and potential impact of a military aggression by North Korea on the U.S. and its allies. The first capability would be a conventional defense of South Korea. Such a defense would encompass the achievement of air dominance to support precision air-based attacks, as well as the ability to destroy North Korean artillery, rocket systems, and armored columns. The second military capability would be a global, layered missile defense system, including the deployment of space-based interceptors and sensors. Spring noted that the U.S. should facilitate direct Japanese and South Korea participation in such an effort. The third capability would be a new nuclear deterrent adapted to the requirements of the post-Cold War world, in particular with respect to rogue regimes. Such a deterrent should be capable of holding targets at risk that are valued by the North Korean leadership as means for personal and regime survival, such as strategic weapons, personal security systems, intelligence services, and other instruments of domestic repression. The fourth military capability would be preemption, to be used if U.S. intelligence believes that a Taep’o-dong 2 long-range ballistic missile has been armed with a nuclear warhead. The U.S. should be prepared to preempt with attack aircraft, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles armed. The missiles should be armed with conventional warheads when there is high confidence of destroying the targets in question, or nuclear warheads if necessary. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, North Korea, Policy
» Missile details: Tien Ma 1
Japan and U.S. Expand Missile Defense Pact
June 23, 2006 :: Washington Post :: News
The U.S. and Japan have signed an agreement to expand cooperation on a joint ballistic missile defense system. The additional pact comes amid concerns that North Korea might test-launch a Taep’o-dong 2 long-range missile. Signed by U.S. Ambassador Thomas Schieffer and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso, the agreement commits the two countries to the joint production of interceptor missiles, and allows for the transfer of ballistic missile defense technology from Japan to the U.S.. The technology transfer issue is a sensitive one in Japan, which has long adhered to a self-imposed ban on arms exports.
The agreement is said to have actually been reached by both countries last year, and today’s signing is seen by many as a warning to North Korea, whose 1998 test-launch of a Taep’o-dong 1 medium-range missile over northern Japan served as Tokyo’s primary impetus for pursuing missile defense in the first place. Political and military analysts also say that in the long term, the primary U.S. and Japanese motivation for the expansion of a joint ballistic missile defense shield is fear over the potential threat posed by China. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Japan, Policy
» Missile details: Tien Chi, Tien Ma 1
» Missile system details for: Japanese Ballistic Missile Defense
Hwang: Direct Talks with North Korea Would Reward “Manipulation and Brinksmanship”
June 20, 2006 :: The Heritage Foundation :: News
Balbina Y. Hwang, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, argues that the U.S. must not reward North Korea’s “manipulation and brinksmanship.” By threatening to test-launch its Taep’o-dong 2 long-range missile, Pyongyang is attempting to force Washington to engage in direct bilateral talks. “The United States has been clear that all diplomatic negotiations must go through the Six-Party framework involving North Korea, the United States, South Korea, Russia, Japan, and China,” she writes. “The Bush Administration should make clear that aggressive behavior by the North Koreans will not cause the United States to alter its position.” Rather than succumbing to Pyongyang’s belligerent behavior, Washington should keep the military option on the table, and make it clear to the North Korean leadership that it will shoot down the missile with ground-based interceptors. Hwang adds that if Pyongyang goes ahead with the launch, Washington should bring North Korea’s aggression before the U.N. Security Council. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, North Korea, Policy
» Missile details: Tien Ma 1
Missile Defense System Declared “Operational”
June 20, 2006 :: Washington Times :: News
The U.S. ground-based interceptor missile defense system is now said to be operational, as North Korea prepares to test launch its Taep’o-dong 2 ballistic missile. The defensive system currently consists of 11 ground-based interceptor missiles, nine deployed at Fort Greely, Alaska, and two at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. In addition, two Navy Aegis warships are on patrol near North Korea and would be among the first sensors that could trigger the use of the ground-based interceptors. The ground-based interceptors appear to constitute the only defense against the North Korean missiles, which are capable of striking the continental U.S. If the Aegis ships in the Sea of Japan contain Standard Missile interceptors in addition to their radars and tracking sensors, this has not been publicly announced. It is not clear if the announcement is of permanent operational capability, or if it is rather keeping with previous announcements of limited and intermittent operational capability, on special alert given North Korea’s apparent missile fueling.
The GMD missile system was switched from test to operational mode within the past two weeks, according to various defense sources. The Washington Times cites a senior Bush administration official as stating that the White House is currently considering how to proceed if and when the Taep’o-dong 2 were to be launched. A decision to shoot down the missile would be made at the highest command levels, which includes the president, secretary of defense, and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stated that a North Korean launch would be a serious matter and “would be taken with utmost seriousness and indeed a provocative act.” (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Deployment, North Korea, Policy
» Missile details: Tien Ma 1
» Missile system details for: Fort Greely, Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI), Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD), Vandenberg Air Force Base
Kennedy Discusses Missile Defense on Good Morning America
June 20, 2006 :: Analysis
Brian T. Kennedy, president of the Claremont Institute, discussed U.S. missile defense policy today on Good Morning America. As North Korea appears to fuel their Taep’o-Dong 2 missile, Kennedy made the case for a robust and layered missile defense shield that would protect the U.S. from a potentially devastating attack. He noted that although the Bush administration is currently deployed a ground-based missile defense system, the current shield is far from complete and will require increased funding. “It’s a question of quality here,” he said. “We believe that the president is very well intentioned when it comes to missile defense. It’s just that we’re just not putting the resources toward it quickly enough.” (Article, Link)
» Watch Brian T. Kennedy on Good Morning America
» More stories on: North Korea, Policy
