Senate Funding for Missile Defense in Europe
May 14, 2008 :: News
The Senate Armed Services Committee has approved increased funding for a U.S. missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The newly allotted funds will increase the project budget from $320 million to $712 million, and legislators have also earmarked money for two constructing the two sites. The Bush Administration had urged this authorization, which is part of the 2009 defense policy bill. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Policy
Bush: Russia Can Defeat European Missile Defenses
April 2, 2008 :: The White House :: News
Following a meeting with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, President Bush noted that the missile defense systems proposed for Europe would in no way threaten the free ride Russian missiles have to the American homeland. "Russia could easily overwhelm the missile defense systems that we have envisioned," said Bush. Speaking to reporters, Bush continued:
It's in [Putin's] interests that we participate and share information. After all, a missile from the Middle East can fly north just as easily as it could fly west, and the capacity to be able to share information and share technology to be able to deal with these threats is important for a lot of countries, including Russia.
While optimistic, much work remains, according to Bush.
Obviously we've got work to do to convince [Putin] and the people around him that the missile defense system is not aimed at Russia, or is viewed as a anti-Russian device. Well, it's not, and, therefore, it requires a lot of time, a lot of discussion. That's what Condi Rice and Bob Gates spent time doing when they were in Russia, and that is to defuse any notions that this is aiming something at somebody in Europe. This is all aiming to protect people in Europe.
President Bush noted the difficulties of U.S.-Russian relations: "we're dealing with a lot history and a lot of suspicion...the President and I will try to work through these for our common good. And I'm hopeful we can have some breakthroughs."
Bush is scheduled to meet with Putin in Sochi this week. This will be the last face-to-face meeting between the two before Putin departs his office. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Policy, European Missile Defenses
Reagan Monument Dedicated at Vandenberg
March 28, 2008 :: The Lompoc Record :: News
Lieutenant General Henry Obering, Director of the Missile Defense Agency, delivered the dedication speech at the unveiling of a new Reagan Monument at Vandenberg Air Force Base in Lompoc, California today. Vandenberg, home to three interceptors residing in underground silos, seemed the perfect place to remember Reagan's own words on missile defense and to reinvigorate his SDI vision. Speakers included Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ) and Riki Ellison, founder and president of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Policy
Karako on 25th Anniversary of SDI
March 27, 2008 :: Investor’s Business Daily :: Analysis
On the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Strategic Defense Intitiative, Tom Karako, director of programs for the Claremont Institute, writes in Investor's Business Daily comparing current missile defense policies with those begun by Ronald Reagan. Excerpts:
...The Bush administration has taken important first steps toward national missile defense. It withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002 and has made tremendous progress in deploying missile defenses, two things Reagan did not do. Current programs deserve much praise, but nevertheless fall short of the threat-based defense SDI in important ways pursued by Reagan.
Reagan envisioned a defense that was strategic, oriented to stopping the most an enemy could threaten. SDI emphasized interceptors in low Earth orbit. Space-based interceptors formed the primary front line of a defense, intended to be supplemented by sea- and land-based interceptors.
By the early 1990s, SDI had advanced to the level of the major defense acquisition program, a constellation of small, space-based interceptors. The Brilliant Pebbles concept promised a cost-effective way to destroy missiles in their ascent or boost phase, when they are most visible and vulnerable.
As the Missile Defense Agency's historian has documented, the program was cut for political reasons just as it was nearing the deployment phase. Its technologies were, however, successfully space-tested by the Clementine and Astrid programs in 1994.
Some hesitation about space defenses comes from the idea that space is a weapons-free preserve. But the high ground of space is merely an extension of strategic geography, and has long been "weaponized."
Armies project power on land, navies on the high seas, aircraft in the atmosphere. Satellites and missiles do so above the atmosphere. Satellites that surveil the enemy or send GPS coordinates to a warfighter are no less weapons because they do not go "boom." If a satellite in orbit helps direct a laser-guided bomb to a target in Afghanistan, in exactly what sense is space not weaponized?
All ballistic missiles travel through space, and it makes sense to intercept them from and in space. Putting interceptors closer to the paths of these missiles shortens the distance they must travel and widens the window of reaction time.
Orbited interceptors are already accelerated to 8 kilometers per second, and do not require a massive booster rocket. Any surface-based system, by contrast, retains the physical challenge of needing to be accelerated at a moment's notice. In missile interception, seconds matter. Basing in space buys time.
Orbital basing also increases the ability to destroy missiles in their boost phase. Unless they are close to the launch site, ground-based interceptors cannot reach missiles in their boost phase if launched inland. Orbits know no political boundaries, so orbiting interceptors could reach missiles in boost phase even if launched deep inside Iran, Russia or China.
...One may defend the modesty of the current approach on the ground that it is imprudent to irritate our strategic competitors in a time of war. But let us have no confusion about the degree to which some missiles retain a free ride to the American homeland.
Let us admit we intend to remain vulnerable to even accidental and unauthorized missiles coming from Russia or China. The path of deliberate minimalism is deterred from boldly pursuing the most effective missile defense systems. Such self-deterrence did not characterize Reagan or SDI.
As Secretary of State Rice remarked in February, "It is true that the United States once had a Strategic Defense Initiative, a program that was intended to deal with the question of the Russian strategic nuclear threat. This is not that program. This is not the son of that program. This is not the grandson of that program."
This is true. Twenty five years later, the S has been dropped from SDI. ...
(Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy, Space-Based Systems
Cheney Remarks on 25th Anniversary of SDI
March 12, 2008 :: The Heritage Foundation :: Events
Vice President Dick Cheney spoke on the continued need for ballistic missile defense at an event in Washington DC by the Heritage Foundation commemorating the twenty-fifth anniversary of Ronald Reagan's March 23, 1983 speech announcing the Strategic Defense Initiative, a program to research and develop ballistic missile defense technologies.
There is still a great deal yet to accomplish in the field of missile defense. But we're a lot farther along than we would have been if Ronald Reagan hadn't set this effort in motion 25 years ago. At the end of his address to the nation, Reagan said, "Tonight we're launching an effort which holds the promise of changing the course of human history. There will be risk, and results take time. But I believe we can do it." Well, time has shown that he was right. We can do this. We are well along in making good on the promise of strategic defense. The project gathers together American idealism, American ingenuity, and American optimism. And that is an unbeatable combination.
Vice President Cheney spoke of the importance of Reagan's first steps toward missile defense in the face of a growing Soviet threat, and the threat today from numerous missile-capable countries.
Full text of the remarks: (More »»»)
» Video of Cheney remarks on missile defense
» More stories on: Policy
NATO 'Must Prepare to Launch Nuclear Attack'
January 22, 2008 :: News
A group of senior defense and military officials from various NATO countries issued a report analyzing the trans-atlantic alliance and making several policy recommendations. The report stresses that to stem further nuclear proliferation, the alliance should not rule out first-strike use of nuclear weapons. "The risk of further proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible... The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.... To tie our hands on first use or no first use removes a huge plank of deterrence." The report also proposes the alliance scrap consensus decision making, to speed the process when fast action is necessary. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: NATO, Policy, Nuclear Weapons
Crouch and Joseph on the Next Tough Steps for Missile Defense Policy
January 22, 2008 :: The Wall Street Journal :: Analysis
In today's Wall Street Journal former Deputy National Security Adviser J.D. Crouch, II and former Undersecretary of State Robert Joseph call for a bold and firm approach to ballistic missile defense and to space-based interceptors in particular. In "Tough Calls, Good Calls," Crouch and Joseph liken the Bush administration's decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and to begin to deploy ballistic missile defense system to other tough choices guided by strategic foresight which have since been proven sound. Crouch and Joseph point out that critics objecting to the ABM Treaty withdrawal predicted consequences of gloom and doom which never materialized, such as a new arms race. "None of these things have happened as a result of the ABM Treaty withdrawal. But the decision will enable us to counter a still-growing 21st century threat."
Crouch and Joseph go on to argue that important, and "tough calls" remain for ballistic missile defense policyand the next presidential administration. These steps include the European third-site for Ground-Based Interceptors, measures to combat countermeasures by North Korea and Iran, the development of multiple-kill vehicles, enhanced sea-based defenses, and finally space-based interceptors:
What are the next steps that the country should take to capitalize fully on this strategic choice?
First, the president's call for a third strategic missile defense site in Europe must be carried out. This site provides additional capability to protect the U.S., and to protect as well our European allies from a growing Iranian missile threat. The site would further cement the development of a global sensor-and-interceptor network necessary for effective missile defense. Failure to follow through would have implications for our alliances both inside and out of Europe.
Second, we can expect that rogue states such as North Korea and Iran are already looking at ways to counter our existing defenses. One way they might do this is to deploy decoys or other countermeasures on their existing offensive missiles that must be attacked, and could thus exhaust our limited supply of interceptors. Fortunately, we can now explore cost-effective solutions to this threat.
One solution is to develop interceptors with multiple kill vehicles -- something that was explicitly banned by the ABM Treaty. Another solution is to develop advanced discrimination techniques to tell the decoys from the real threats. These techniques include using radars, space-based sensors, or a new concept that uses dozens of miniature interceptors that can literally sweep away an entire threat cloud of decoys, allowing the missile interceptor to hone in on the real warhead.
None of these techniques is fully proven, but neither was the hit-to-kill technology begun by President Reagan and later successfully deployed by President Bush. We must focus investment in the discrimination problem and improve our existing systems with these new capabilities.
Third, we can do more to increase the capabilities of existing assets. We can, for example, improve our sea-based capabilities -- both our performance against long-range missiles and the number of assets deployed. Under the ABM Treaty, we had to "dumb down" our so-called theater systems to ensure that they could not be used to defend the U.S. from attack. Free from this restraint, as well as from the Treaty's prohibition on mobile-launch platforms, we can now do much more to integrate our defense with that of our allies and make the most of the assets we have deployed.
Finally, we must look again at space as a place to deploy interceptors.
There is no question that space provides the highest leverage against the missile threat: Targets are more visible, more accessible and more vulnerable when attacked from space. While there are concerns about "weaponizing space," these pale in comparison to the increasing vulnerability of U.S. space-based satellites by weapons from the ground traversing space. The recent Chinese anti-satellite test was a wake-up call.
Space-based interceptors, like those proposed by former President George H. W. Bush in 1991, have the potential to strengthen missile defense, and to provide protection for key intelligence and communications assets in space that are now vulnerable from ground-based attack.
The progress of the past six years stems from one tough decision. That very same decision will allow us to stay ahead of the 21st century ballistic-missile threat.
(Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Deployment, Policy, Space-Based Systems, Treaties and Agreements
Lawmakers Cut Missile Defense Funds
November 6, 2007 :: AP :: News
On November 6, U.S. appropriators meeting from the House and Senate made a number of changes to the missile defense budget, for a total reduction of some $185 million dollars. The Air-Borne Laser was cut by $35 million, and the entire plan for studies for a space test bed was completely zeroed-out. The changes also included cutting $85 million requested by President Bush to build a facility to house ten Ground Based Interceptors in Poland, however the money designated for the X-band radar facility in the Czech Republic and the ten interceptors themselves was left intact. The bill still must be approved by both bodies of Congress, and Democrats have indicated they might restore the money should Poland's government agree to house the missiles and if the entire system undergoes extensive testing.
Summary of funding reductions and changes:
- Reduces funding for the European Site program by $85 million.
- Reduces funding for Airborne Laser (ABL) by $35 million.
- Zeroes out the Conceptual Studies of a Space Test Bed (STB).
- Reduces overall Missile Defense budget by $185 million.
- Fully funds Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD).
- Provides an additional $80 million for test and training range upgrades and supportand ground-based missile defense enhancements.
- Provides an additional $75 million for the Aegis program for the Ballistic Signal Processor, Standard Missiles, Ship installations and upgrades, and an asymmetric defense initiative.
- Adds $75 million for Arrow co-production, the Upper-tier program, and Short Range Ballistic Missile Defense. (Israeli programs)
- Provides an additional $120 million for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) program.
(Article, Link)
» More stories on: Policy, European Missile Defenses, Budget
Pitts: Missile Defense Makes Sense
November 2, 2007 :: Analysis
On November 2, TruthNews.com posted an opinion piece from Congressman Joe Pitts (PA-16). Pitts notes that while the U.S. is fighting nuclear proliferation, the risks posed by illegal arms sales, like those of Pakistani A.Q. Khan to non-state actors and rogue states alike, will likely increase over time. While the U.S. should intensify its efforts to curtail these threats, it also must deploy a strong missile defense to defend against the worst case scenario. Unfortunately, as the need for a strong missile defense has only increased, the U.S. Congress has cut the Missile Defense Agency's budget, including "$139 million... for Europe." Pitts concludes: "This is a critical time for moving forward with the deployment of missile defense systems for the United States and our allies. Despite the best efforts of the United States, we may very well see further nuclear proliferation in the future, not less. We must prepare for the security risk that will result if countries like Iran obtain nuclear weapons." (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy
President Bush Speech on Missile Defense at National Defense University
October 23, 2007 :: The White House :: News
On October 23, President George Bush visited the National Defense University. His speech covered both the war on terror and ballistic missile defense. The president highlighted his administration's successes in deploying a missile defense system.
The first step we took was to withdraw from the ABM Treaty...The second step we took was to make missile defense operational, while continuing our research and development efforts. Instead of spending decades trying to develop a perfect shield, we decided to begin deploying missile defense capabilities as soon as the technology was proven ready -- and then build on that foundation by adding new capabilities as they matured... The third step we took was to reach out to the world and involve other nations in the missile defense effort. Since 2001, we've worked closely with countries such as Israel, and Italy, and Germany, and Japan, and the Netherlands, and Britain, and others on missile defense... As a result of this collaboration, missile defense has gone from an American innovation to a truly international effort to help defend free nations against the true threats of the 21st century.
He also praised the new systems by citing their performance during North Korea's missile tests in July, 2006 when Pyongyang tested missiles the intelligence community believes are capable of reaching the United States, noting that:
Had these tests taken place just a few years earlier, they would have underscored America's vulnerability to a ballistic missile attack. Instead, because of the decisions we took in 2001, and because of the hard work of people in this room, our military had in place a capability to track the North Korean vehicle and engage it if it threatened our country. So the test North Korea intended to showcase its power became a demonstration that the pursuit of ballistic missiles will ultimately be fruitless— because America and our allies are building and deploying the means to defend against this threat.
President Bush continued by stressing that the next task is to defend Europe and the U.S. from a missile attack from the greater Middle East. "Our intelligence community assesses that, with continued foreign assistance, Iran could develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States and all of Europe before 2015. If it chooses to do so, and the international community does not take steps to prevent it, it is possible Iran could have this capability. And we need to take it seriously." The President has proposed that the U.S. deploy ten missile interceptors in Poland and an X-Band radar facility in the Czech Republic to provide a limited defense from a small scale missile attack from Iran. He also voiced support for involving other defenses in Romania, Bulgaria and Greece to protect the vulnerable parts of Europe from a shorter range missile attack. President Bush unequivocally repeated that the missile defense planned for Europe is not intended to diminish Russia's strategic nuclear deterrent. On the contrary, the U.S. wishes to engage and cooperate with Russia in deploying and maintaining a strong missile defense system.
The President concluded by articulating the clear strategic benefit of deploying a missile defense system.
A terrorist regime that can strike America or our allies with a ballistic missile is likely to see this power as giving them free rein for acts of aggression and intimidation in their own neighborhoods. But with missile defenses in place, the calculus of deterrence changes in our favor. If this same terrorist regime does not have confidence their missile attack would be successful, it is less likely to engage in acts of aggression in the first place. We would also have more options for dealing with their aggression if deterrence fails...Missile defense also strengthens our counter-proliferation efforts...By deploying effective defenses, we reduce incentives to build ballistic missiles--because rogue regimes are less likely to invest in weapons that cannot threaten free nations...Missile defense also helps us dissuade nations from developing nuclear weapons. Through our missile defense partnerships with nations in Asia and Europe and the Middle East, we can help friends and allies defend against missile attack. These defenses will build their confidence. And these defenses will make it less likely that they will feel the need to respond to the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea by developing nuclear weapons of their own.
Full text of the NDU remarks: (More »»»)
» More stories on: Policy, European Missile Defenses
