Gaffney on the Threat From China
March 29, 2004 :: Washington Times :: Analysis
Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy perceptively notes the danger the exclusive attention on post 9-11 commission poses, the neglect of another more strategic threat, namely that from Communist China. (Article, Link)
» Center for Security Policy report on the neglected threat from China
» More stories on: Analysis, China
Hackett on SDI Anniversary, Plans for 2004 Deployment
March 23, 2004 :: Washington Times :: Analysis
James T. Hackett of the Heritage Foundation discusses the Strategic Defense Initiative embarked upon by Ronald Reagan, and the steps President Bush is taking this year toward making that goal a reality. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy
Grant on BMD and America’s Founding Principles
March 10, 2004 :: The Claremont Institute :: Writings
Claremont Institute Fellow John Grant reminds us why our founding principles require us to defend against ballistic missile attack. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: ABM Treaty, Analysis, Policy
Study on China’s Stance Toward U.S. BMD, China’s Own Missile Defenses
March 4, 2004 :: Analysis
A study prepared by the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) for the Defense Intelligence Agency outlines both China’s likely response and attitudes toward U.S. ballistic missile defense, and China’s own missile defense efforts and systems.
The study, dated September 2003, divides the treatment of China’s strategic position towards missile defenses into 5 periods, beginning in 1955 and ending with 2002.
The outline of Chinese strategic doctrine from that of the Mao years, when nuclear weapons were regarded as just another weapon, through China’s very reluctant acceptance of something like mutually assured destruction, shows a policy which has not followed the same track as that of the United States in its nuclear thinking. Unlike Russia and domestic left-wing opponents, for example, China apparently may have considered Reagan’s SDI as potentially stabilizing.
Most interesting, however, is the (admittedly little) light shed on China’s own ballistic missile programs, which around 1964, when Chairman Mao ordered a long term BMD research. According to various sources cited, the program included a team of 8-10 scientists, a cost of some $100 million dollars, is described as having paralleled U.S. and Soviet research during the period, until Deng Xiaping allegedly cancelled the program in 1983. Another source cited, however, claims that there was a Program 640 which set out to field a viable defense which included “a kinetic kill vehicle, a high powered laser, space early warning, and target discrimination system components.” The study also notes that Secretary McNamara apparently hinted at such Chinese BMD developments in 1966. There is also evidence that China was weighing both a land-based defense and a space based defense in the 1980s. The study notes the plausibility of Chinese missile defenses patterned after Soviet and (previous) American interceptors which were nuclear-tipped, but hastily steps back to say that there is no evidence for this “in the literature surveyed for this essay.”
The study describes an “acceleration and expansion of China’s own efforts to build a missile defense system” during the 1990s. In addition to some 100 or more SA-300 air and missile defense interceptors acquired from Russia, China apparently also began work on the “Patriot-like” HQ-9 interceptor, and another with an extended range based on America’s more advanced PAC-3. One factor pushing this acceleration was concern for the need to defend the Three Gorges Dam—where China is believed to have such missile defenses currently deployed. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, China, Chinese Missile Defenses, Proliferation
Council for a Livable World Attacks Bush Plan to Deploy
February 20, 2004 :: Tech Central Station :: Analysis
In an article entitled Missile Defense: The Dangers and Lack of Realism, George Rathjens and Carl Kaysen of the Council for a Livable World savage plans to deploy missile defenses. Although efforts to withdraw from the ABM Treaty began shortly after Bush entered office in 2001, Rathjens and Kaysen allege that the 2004 deployment is an election year ploy. They then proceed to recount the tired arguments against missile defense trotted out over the past 30 years. By comparing Bush’s 2004 “election year” deployment to that of LBJ’s similar proposal for 1968 (when LBJ was not running for reelection), they both confuse the reader and date themselves, both in the obsolescence of their arguments and their refusal to see that the doctrine of mutually assured destruction may not be as applicable today as it may have been during the Cold War, if ever. Just as they and others had argued against Reagan’s SDI program, that it shouldn’t be done unless it was 100% effective, so the same arguments are made again now. The benefit of deployment:
depends on whether any deployed defense might be essentially 100% effective. This, however, will certainly not be the case with President Bush’s announced deployment, nor do we believe it likely with any system that might evolve from it. Like it or not, nuclear deterrence is likely to be with us during the first part of this century, as it was during much of the last.
Their adamant “like it or not” refusal to consider any alternative to MAD betrays, at the very least, an ignorance to take account of changed global circumstances. The bankruptcy of the Cold War doctrine of MAD so often emphasized on missilethreat.com is very well articulated in an article responding to the CLW screed. Charlie Rainbolt at TechCentralStation.com zeroes in on their logical flaw. Even if a system is not 100% effective—no defense is—some defense is better than none. Paradoxical and sophisticated arguments for “strategic stability,” which required Americans to be vulnerable in order to be safe, are simply no longer persuasive in a world of wide proliferation and irrational actors. (Article, Link)
» CLW attack on BMD deployment
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy
Spring on Missile Defense Opponents
January 20, 2004 :: The Heritage Foundation :: Analysis
Baker Spring of the Heritage Foundation considers that elites’ opposition to missile defenses is based in neither principle nor response to the popular will, but arrogance. He claims that the policies of, for example, Governor Howard Dean would be a return to Mutually Assured Destruction. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy
WSJ Editorial Praising Missile Defense Efforts
December 8, 2003 :: The Wall Street Journal :: News
The Wall Street Journal editorial page today praised the efforts by the Bush administration in the field of missile defense. Listing the past week’s announcements of new programs such as the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, and the successes with Australia and Japan to join missile defense efforts, the editor concludes by reminding us of the courage it took to get this far:
“None of this would have been possible if the U.S. had stayed in the ABM Treaty, which forbade the deployment of any defense against ballistic missiles or the sharing of technology. At last the U.S. is making good progress in protecting America’s homeland and allies from ballistic missile attack.”
(subscription required to view) (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis
Miller on Edward Teller
July 23, 2003 :: National Review Online :: Analysis
Upon the recent award of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, “the nation’s highest civil honor,” to physicist, nuclear strategist, and long-time champion of missile defense Edward Teller, National Review Online republished this September 30, 2002 piece by John Miller detailing Teller’s achievements and courage. (Article, Link)
» White House on Teller Award
» 1990 Interview with Teller
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy
Blank on Proliferation in Asia
July 22, 2003 :: Asia Times :: Analysis
Stephen Blank on the growing proliferation of ballistic missiles by China and North Korea, both of which pose a great threat to Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan, as well as the latter’s responses with missile defense. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, China, Proliferation
Adelman on MEADS
July 9, 2003 :: Tech Central Station :: Analysis
Ken Adelman, assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld from 1975 to 1977 and U.N. ambassador and arms-control director under President Ronald Reagan, discusses the “next generation” of SDI, and the capabilities of the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS). (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Land-Based Systems, Technology
» Missile system details for: Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS)
