Wood: Next President Must Continue Missile Defense
July 14, 2005 :: Analysis
Lowell Wood, senior staff scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, recently stated that the next U.S. president will have little choice other than to continue developing the current ballistic missile defense system. Quoted in a July 14 article in Defense Today, Wood emphasized that the next president will have to pursue missile defense, or else leave the nation at the mercy of hostile powers. Wood argued that regardless of who the next president is, the U.S. should follow three main objectives. First, it should create a “militarily effective system.” Second, the system should provide a “cost exchange advantage at the margin.” Third, it must be “robust in all plausible military environments,” meaning bad weather. In addition to these objectives, Wood warned against relying on what he termed “flimsy and readily countermeasured defenses,” which could be defeated by decoys or other such devices.
Although Wood’s outline of the principles which should be followed is sound, it remains quite possible that a Democrat or even Republican administration could continue a lackluster or halfhearted missile defense program, which though nominally progressing would not provide the adequate layered and robust defenses necessary to truly defend the United States. (Link)
» More stories on: Analysis
Dinerman: Why Not Fight Wars in Space?
June 20, 2005 :: The Space Review :: Analysis
Taylor Dinerman has another fine article on the subject of the weaponization of space in The Space Review. Besides recalling the physical principles and strategic facts which make space a useful base of operations, and the fact that America is already very dependent upon vulnerable space-based satellites, Dinerman also addresses the charged politics behind those so violently opposed to the use of space for the defense of America. A brief excerpt:
The nature of space technology, and of space itself, as the ultimate high ground, means that there will be weapons, and future battles, outside Earth’s atmosphere. No matter what actually happens, it is almost certain that some will find a way to blame America. Therefore, any decision regarding the building of any space warfare system should be made strictly on the basis of military utility. Since no argument or foreign threat will likely change the minds of those who are against space weaponization, any change in US space policy, no matter how mild or hedged with caveats, will be portrayed as opening the doors of hell. Rather, under current circumstances, President Bush should authorize the pursuit of more and better space assets, including weapons, and Donald Rumsfeld should be pushing the Air Force to radically improve the way it designs and builds all its space systems.
After all, why not fight wars in space? There’s lots of room there and not a lot of civilians to get in the way.
(Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Space-Based Systems
Independent Review Team Report
June 13, 2005 :: Washington Post :: News
An independent panel chartered by the Pentagon has concluded that the “rush to deploy” a national missile defense system at Fort Greely, Alaska, led to shortfalls in quality controls and engineering procedures, reports The Washington Post. Although the report contains no mention of any fundamental flaws in the system’s design, it argues that recent flight-test failures stemmed from the Pentagon’s preoccupation with deadlines. According to the panel, the “rush to deploy” resulted in insufficient ground tests, a lack of specifications and standards, and a tendency to postpone the resolution of bothersome issues. The panel’s recommendation is that the Pentagon “reorient the program” to place greater emphasis on verification and reliability, thus making successful testing “the primary objective.” In the future, the program should “be event-driven rather than schedule-driven.”
The panel’s conclusions notwithstanding, it is important to remember the Bush administration’s justification for deploying these interceptors: to defend the U.S. against a potential missile attack by North Korea. In recent years, North Korea has acquired the capability to launch long-range missiles at the U.S., which could be armed with nuclear, chemical, or biological warheads. Faced with this threat, the Bush administration was correct to pursue a limited missile defense, rather than leave the U.S. completely vulnerable to attack. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, North Korea
Goldfarb on “Rods From God” Space Weapons
June 8, 2005 :: The Weekly Standard :: Analysis
Michael Goldfarb, writing in The Weekly Standard, explains the concept of kinetic-energy space-based weapons otherwise known as “Rods from God”—a possible defense against underground, hardened missile facilities, such as those deployed by Iran. “Rods from God” would consist of two satellites: one serving as a communications platform, the other carrying an arsenal of tungsten rods, each roughly 7.0 m long and 0.3 m in diameter. The rods, when dropped from space, would enter the Earth’s atmosphere at approximately 11,000 m/s, about as fast as a meteor. This weapon would rely on kinetic energy, rather than explosives, to generate its destructive force. Upon impact, the rods would be capable of producing all the effects of an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon, without the radioactive fallout. Goldfarb admits that “Rods from God” are at least 10 years away from being operational, and face numerous technological and financial obstacles. Nevertheless, he maintains that space-based assets such as the rods will eventually become reality, and that the U.S. can either pursue such systems, or step aside and let Beijing lead the way. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Space-Based Systems
Peter Brookes on Weaponizing Space
June 7, 2005 :: The Weekly Standard :: Analysis
Peter Brookes, senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, argues persuasively in the New York Post for the deployment of strategic space-based military assets. He reiterates that space is critical to U.S. national security, but laments the fact that the Bush administration’s soon-to-be-issued National Space Policy—the first update since the Clinton administration’s in 1996—has created “hysteria” among arms control advocates, many of whom are already condemning Bush’s new policy with terms such as “arms race,” “strategic instability,” and “militarizing space.”
Brookes pays particular attention to the contention that space-based systems could provoke an arms race, concluding that, “It ain’t necessarily so.” He reminds us that for decades, arms controllers denounced ballistic missile defense, warning that it would destabilize relations with China and Russia and spark a devastating post-Cold War arms race. Yet no such scenario has materialized. According the Brookes, “The Bush administration’s initial deployment of missile defense hasn’t caused an arms race or made relations with Beijing and Moscow any tougher than they already were. It has, however, improved our national security by providing the first protection against ballistic missiles—ever.” (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Space-Based Systems
Hackett: MDA Needs to Keep Eye on Goal
May 25, 2005 :: Washington Times :: Analysis
James T. Hackett of The Washington Times reports that U.S. senators have urged the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to keep its eye on the goal: near-term deployment. In recent statements, Senators Ted Stevens (R-AK), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) have emphasized that the MDA should spend its limited funds on deploying ground-based midcourse interceptors and ship-based missile defenses, rather than on duplicative or long-term projects such as the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI). Many proponents of missile defense believe that the KEI project diverts attention and resources from more promising programs. The MDA has earmarked $5 billion for the KEI over the next four years.
Members of Congress are correct to urge the MDA to remain focused on the primary goal of deploying missile defenses in the near term. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy
» Missile system details for: Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI)
National Review on the Weaponization of Space
May 20, 2005 :: National Review Online :: Analysis
The editors of National Review respond to the increasing attention to the weaponization of space controversy, weighing in on the side of the advantage of such systems.
The debate over such technologies is closely related to the debate over missile defense. Critics of the Air Force’s space aims get especially upset about space-based interceptors, which, unlike ground- and sea-based interceptors, could target a missile during its slow ascent over enemy territory.
…Any notion that space is now a pristine, weapon-free zone is pure fantasy. The irresistible power of our military depends, to a large extent, precisely on its use of space. What is a GPS satellite that guides a precision bomb to its target, if not the component of a weapon system?…In any case, further weaponization of space is probably inevitable…It’s naïve to think that today’s powers won’t compete for control of space in much the same way. Does anyone doubt that China, for example, will have moral scruples about deploying space weapons as it is becomes able to do so?
…Now is the time to channel that advantage toward a benevolent American domination of space. Doing so may not be popular, but it will make us—and the world—safer.
(Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Space-Based Systems
MDAA Poll: 79% of Americans Favor Missile Defense
April 12, 2005 :: MDAA :: Analysis
The Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance recently released polling data conducted by a public opinion research firm, AmericanPublic.US, detailing Americans’ broad support for ballistic missile defense. In a sample of 1,000 registered voters representative of the national population with regard to gender, age, income, education, and region, 79% of Americans overall support a missile defense. By party, the support was 70% Democrats, 70% Independents, and 91% Republicans. A more extensive breakdown of the polling data is available from MDAA’s site. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy
CSP on the Merits of Navy Missile Defense
March 4, 2005 :: Center for Security Policy :: Analysis
Responding to the recent successful intercept on February 24, the Center for Security Policy has posted praise for the Navy’s sea-based Aegis ballistic missile defense system to meet the growing missile threat. They note first the significance of the test:
Three features make this test particularly significant: For the first time, the hardware and software utilized was the operational configuration (known as AEGIS BMD 3.0) that will be installed in all other AEGIS missile defense ships. No less noteworthy is the fact that the SM-3 utilized to shoot down the target was one of the first of the production rounds to come off the manufacturing line. And, the personnel used to conduct the test were the regular crew of the U.S.S. Lake Erie.
In other words, this was the “real deal.” The option of complementing land-based anti-missile defenses with sea-based assets capable of both tracking ballistic missiles and destroying them in-flight is now in hand.
In addition to the exemplary performance of the Lake Erie and her crew, Thursday’s test also featured another important development. A second AEGIS ship, the USS Russell, brought to bear for the first time a new capability known as the AEGIS Ballistic Missile Signal Processor (BMSP). This S-Band radar provided real-time discrimination and classification of the target, information that considerably enhances the probability of intercept. The AEGIS BMSP holds great promise for expanding missile defense radar coverage at a fraction of the cost of other approaches.
(More »»»)
» Feb. 28, 2005: Gaffney on Aegis in Washington Times
» More stories on: Analysis
» Missile system details for: Aegis Ship-Based BMD
Analysis of Pentagon “Semantics”
January 18, 2005 :: Washington Times :: News
Pamela Hass of United Press International writes on the Pentagon’s “semantics” of the past several months as regards formal deployment of the ballistic missile defense system. Hass correctly notes that for many months prior to September 2004, both the administration and the Missile Defense Agency indicated that some initial capabilities would be operational in 2004, and possibly by October of 2004. What appear to have been a number of delays have been followed upon by some level of ambiguity as to whether, if at all, the missile defense system would be fully operational, there being no formal declaration of its deployment, and in fact indications from both Secretary Rumsfeld and MDA head General Obering in the past month have been that there may never be a formal declaration. The most recent pronouncements have been that there currently exists some very limited capability to defend against ballistic missiles. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy
