Hackett: “Dawn of a New Era”
October 1, 2004 :: Washington Times :: Analysis
James T. Hackett has a fine article in today’s Washington Times on the expected operational deployment of ground based interceptors in Alaska in the coming days. Today, October 1, is the 29th anniversary of the only previous operational missile defenses in America, the nuclear tipped “Spartan” and “Sprint” interceptors briefly stationed at Grand Forks, North Dakota in 1975, to defend the Minuteman ICBM field located there.
Hackett also reminds us that it was Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts who led the successful charge to close the base shortly after it was deployed, which it was, by February of 1976. If Senator Kerry is elected as president, history could well repeat itself, with the Alaska system in one manner or another being taken offline shortly after his inauguration. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Deployment
Currie on Kerry’s Missile Defense Record
August 31, 2004 :: The Weekly Standard :: Analysis
Duncan Currie, editorial assistant of the Weekly Standard, has a very fine piece outlining Presidential Candidate John Kerry’s record on missile defense, from his opposition to Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative to his current pronouncements that he would significantly scale back the work being done on missile defense in Alaska, with budget cuts that would paralyze the system at best, and more likely set back any real deployment for at least another four years. Currie correctly notes that “It is no exaggeration to say the future of national missile defense (NMD) hinges on November’s presidential election.” (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy
Kaplan on the Merits of Vulnerability, Mutually Assured Destruction
July 28, 2004 :: News
Writing for the Slate online magazine, Fred Kaplan comments on the recent installment of the first missile defense interceptor in Alaska, and argues that, despite common sense to the contrary, some defense is indeed worse than none. The subheading to Kaplan’s article is the following: “What’s the optimal number of anti-missile missiles? None.”
Such arguments for the merits of vulnerability enjoyed some measure of plausibility during the Cold War, when only the Soviet Union and China had nuclear armed ICBMs. Kaplan’s updating of the arguments, however, show their absurdity, as he argues that the deployment will only “provoke” North Korea into producing more nuclear weapons and more long range missiles. The Federation of American Scientists, long known for their opposition to all things missile defense, praises Kaplan’s argument by name.
What these arguments ignore, however, is that North Korea and Iran will continue their best efforts regardless of whether or not the United States does anything about it. If North Korea should respond to the initial deployment of ten missile interceptors with, say, 12 long range missiles, the United States should deploy an additional 10. This is an arms race we can win, and we should not be afraid to do so. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, North Korea
Hackett on MDA’s Priorities
July 27, 2004 :: Washington Times :: Analysis
Writing for the Washington Times, James T. Hackett notes the political challenges facing the new head of the Missile Defense Agency, General Trey Obering, who will preside over the initial deployment of America’s missile defense system this fall. Hackett also praises the Congress for trimming funding for the costly and problematic Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI). (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis
» Missile system details for: Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI)
Kyl: BMD Essential to Homeland Security
June 20, 2004 :: Analysis
Arizona Senator Jon Kyl points out that, far from being tangential to America’s national security, missile defense is essential, indeed “at the heart of homeland security.” Kyl writes as proponents of vulnerability in both the House and Senate attempt, by means of amendment, to slash funding for vital missile defense programs. (Article, Link)
» Kyl applauds defeat of anti-missile defense budget amendments
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy
Moran on Kerry’s Record Against Missile Defense
June 2, 2004 :: National Review Online :: Analysis
Robert Moran, writing at National Review Online, documents a few of the many times presidential candidate John Kerry has opposed missile defense. His recent speech saying that the United States must do everything it can to prevent nuclear terrorism will be a tough sell, given his record.
Also worth noting, however, is that John Kerry has devoted some considerable time to the subject of missile defense, and making sure the United States does not deploy one. On May 1, 2001, President Bush gave one of his most important speeches on missile defense, outlining why the United States should, and would, withdraw from the outdated ABM Treaty of 1972, which made missile defense illegal. On the very next day, Kerry responded with a long and articulate response, about the need to preserve the ABM Treaty. The long and short of it was the need to preserve mutually assured destruction. (More »»»)
» May 1, 2001: President Bush at National Defense University
» May 2, 2001: John Kerry’s response to Bush
» Other major speeches on missile defense
» More stories on: ABM Treaty, Analysis, Policy
Spring on Missile Defense
June 2, 2004 :: Washington Times :: Analysis
Baker Spring of the Heritage Foundation writes in the Washington Times on the cheap shots Democrats are taking at the administration’s missile defense efforts. It is easy to criticize something for not being perfect, but a lack of perfection is no reason to not to do the best one is able.
Opponents of Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative often made the argument that if missile defenses are not 100% effective, no defenses were better than some. The same logic is being continued today. But, as Spring notes, the moral and logical bankrupt of the argument for the opposite position, that of mutually assured destruction (MAD), that “In vulnerability, there is virtue,” cannot and must not be the guide for our defense policy. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis
Feulner: Why Stay Vulnerable?
May 28, 2004 :: The Heritage Foundation :: Analysis
Ed Feulner, President of the Heritage Foundation, notes that a good offense alone is insufficient to provide a good defense, and missile defense is no exception. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis
TX Senator John Cornyn Supporting Missile Defense
May 24, 2004 :: Analysis
Texas Senator John Cornyn writes in today’s Houston Chronicle that, despite the opposition of Democrats for insufficient testing, it is important to remember that some level of missile defense is better than none.
Writes Cornyn: “Either America provides some level of defense against long-range ballistic missile threats now, or delays and leaves the nation unguarded - perhaps indefinitely - while waiting for a perfect system to be developed.”
There is in reality no silver bullet, or perfect defense, which arms controllers typically hold up as the only acceptable form of BMD. Some is better than none, more is better than less, and a layered missile defense is superior to a reliance upon any single form of defense. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Deployment
Spring: “Cut and Delay” is Wrong Path for BMD
May 21, 2004 :: The Heritage Foundation :: Analysis
Baker Spring of the Heritage Foundation responds to the opposition the Bush administration defense budget has been receiving by Democrats in the House and Senate this week, some of whom are doing their very best to kill important parts of missile defense funding in committee.
Thus far, most of these attempts at fatal amendments have failed. Spring writes to refute two “spurious contentions”: 1) that missile defense has not had adequate testing to deploy, and 2) that missile defense is too costly.
Spring also points out—as Bush also pointed out in his December 2002 National Security Policy Directive 23 ordering the deployment—that the president is bound by the 1999 law, that makes it the policy of the United States to deploy a missile defense as soon as technologically feasible. (Article, Link)
» Text of 1999 Missile Defense Act
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy
