Garwin on Missile Defense
October 29, 2004 :: Analysis
Richard Garwin writes in the November edition of the Scientific American on the need for missile defense efforts to be properly directed. He makes a number of good points about the ballistic missile threat, but his opposition to the means by which to meet that threat leaves questions unanswered. First, a summary of his main points: (More »»»)
» Archive of Garwin writings at FAS
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy, Space-Based Systems
» Missile system details for: Brilliant Pebbles, Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI), Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD), Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI)
General: Reliable BMD May be Years Out
October 26, 2004 :: Inside Defense :: News
The October 21 edition of Inside the Pentagon includes a story on the delayed deployment of the Alaska and California ground-based midcourse defense (GMD) system.
The article also discusses the likely operational capability of the system after formal “deployment.” Of particular interest is a quote from a Marine Corps General James Cartwright, Strategic Command chief. Cartwright suggests that even when the system comes on-line, it could be years before an adequate chain-of-command is established, to permit the timely firing of interceptors. The command chain would apparently be similar to that which required for the use of nuclear weapons. The relevant excerpt:
For a period of several more years, the initial system’s capabilities will be tentative, at best, Cartwright conceded in an Oct. 6 interview with ITP. In a real attack, a missile intercept using the fledgling defenses would require what Cartwright calls “the alignment of three consecutive miracles,” when “I happen to have the system on, I happen to have it in a configuration that it could be fired, and maybe I’ve got some percentage chance in confidence that I’ve gotten all the way through all the protocols—probably not.”
To be clear, such command level problems do not constitute any reason to further delay deployment. If it will take some time to work out details, or conduct further testing, this should be done sooner rather than later. And it would be better to have a missile defense system “on” half the time, rather than never. At the same time, it seems patently absurd that such problems should require years to solve. If true, however, Cartwright’s bleak assessment of our operational capability signals a substantial failure of bureaucracy. (Link)
» More stories on: Deployment, Policy
» Missile system details for: Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD)
NYT Swipes at Missile Defense
October 10, 2004 :: New York Times :: Analysis
An editorial in today’s New York Times attacks the missile defense system soon to be deployed as “exorbitantly wasteful,” and having as its primary aim, base political objectives, namely reelection.
The Times admits there is a threat: “There is no disputing the idea that North Korea or some other rogue nation might someday present a nuclear missile threat.” Yet the Times recites the tired argument that deployment is undesirable unless it can be perfect, and that, barring perfection, deployment constitutes a “rush” towards a “faith-based” defense.
The Pentagon argues that the testing has been adequate, and that more testing is on the way. Indeed, the Alaska system was designed by the Clinton administration and is now being implemented as a “test bed,” a location from which further, more realistic, tests will be conducted. If it is indisputable that a rogue nation will soon pose a missile threat to the U.S., just how long are we supposed to wait before actually doing something about it?
Of course, the most “realistic” test would involve an actual attack on America by a ballistic missile. Had such an attack already taken place, the issue would be moot, and the political parties tripping over each other about who would more quickly deploy a robust defense, to prevent such an attack from ever taking place again.
Barring the clarity of hindsight which catastrophe can bring, it remains all too easy to drone on irresponsibly, looking for this or that reason to delay deployment in favor of more “research and development.” The testing argument is not now, and has never been, the central question in the missile defense debate. Were there a glut of superfluous testing, the opponents of missile defense would effortlessly shift to another objection.
To be clear: if more testing is needed, more testing should be done. But there is no satisfactory argument for prolonging one minute longer our decades long vulnerability to missile attack. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy
87% of Ohio Residents Support Missile Defense
October 6, 2004 :: MDAA :: News
A poll conducted by Public Strategies, Inc., indicates that some 87% of likely Ohio voters support missile defense. The poll was sponsored by the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance. Some of the other findings:
- 87% of Ohio residents support missile defense
- 64% believe it is a top priority
- 76% believe it is money well spent
- 79% would rather have some defense then none
- 73% would more likely vote for a candidate that supports Missile Defense
- 24% believe missile defense should not be deployed until further testing
- 28% believe a greater emphasis be put on non-proliferation treaties and buy back programs
(Article, Link)
» More stories on: Policy
Canadian Majority Supports BMD
October 5, 2004 :: News
A recent Pollara poll found that a majority of Canadians favor Canadian cooperation in the American-led missile defense programs to defend North America.
The poll comes about a week after Canadian Defense Minister Graham publicly called for Canada to join the American-led effort. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Allies, Policy
Poll: 62% Support Missile Defense; Only 29% Oppose
October 4, 2004 :: News
A recent Newsweek poll conducted after the latest presidential debate found, among other things, that some 62% of registered voters support “The proposal to build an anti-missile shield to protect the United States from a nuclear attack.” The issue of missile defense appeared, briefly, in the debate, with President Bush referring to his strong support for it, and Senator Kerry’s opposition. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Policy
Bush and Kerry Sharply Divide on Need to Deploy Missile Defense
September 16, 2004 :: News
The Nature science journal posed fifteen science-related questions to presidential candidates Bush and Kerry, one of which had to do with the subject of missile defense. The two divided, with Bush stating the policy to deploy as soon as technologically feasible, and Kerry saying that he does not support rapid deployment.
NATURE: Some physicists have questioned the capability of missile defense systems being deployed in the United States. Would you increase or decrease spending on missile defense, and would you subject claims made on its behalf to independent scientific review?
BUSH: Early in my administration, I called for the examination of the full range of available technologies and basing modes for missile defenses that could protect the United States, our deployed forces, and our friends and allies. Our policy is to develop and deploy, at the earliest possible date, ballistic missile defenses drawing on the best technologies available. Later this year, the first components of America’s missile defense system will become operational. This will fulfill a pledge I made to the American people more than four years ago. We will develop and deploy the technologies necessary to protect our people.
KERRY: I am not for rapid deployment of missile defense. We should not waste money on deployment at this point. I favor additional research, development and testing. As to the issue of independent scientific review, we have to be careful because of the classified nature of much of the work in question. At the very minimum, we must work hard to restore the credibility of the internal review process. The truth is the Bush administration has shredded its own credibility on this, particularly in its rush to deploy missile defense. We need to restore the credibility of our own review process and we need to subject systems to realistic, operational testing to make sure that they really work.
(Article, Link)
» More stories on: Policy
Wisconsin Voters Strongly Support Missile Defense
September 1, 2004 :: MDAA :: News
A recent poll of 500 likely Wisconsin voters shows that they very strongly support for missile defense and its immediate deployment. The poll, conducted by Public Strategies and sponsored by the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, included the following results:
- 74% believe missile defense should be a focus of homeland security efforts and is a public safety issue;
- 67% believe missile defense should be a national top priority;
- 74% will support a presidential candidate who supports missile defense;
- 77% would rather have a partial missile defense system in place than none at all;
- 79% would feel safer with a system in place; and
- 88% believe any missile attack on United States soil would have an adverse impact on Wisconsin’s economy
Also of interest is that some 52% of those surveyed (falsely) believe that the U.S. already has a missile defense system in place. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Policy
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
Rumsfeld Speaks at Space and Missile Defense Conference
August 18, 2004 :: Department of Defense :: News
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld spoke to the seventh annual Space and Missile Defense Conference, held in Huntsville, Alabama, where he spoke of the importance of missile defense and the plans for deployment in the coming months.
Among other things, Rumsfeld noted that “History has taught us that weakness is provocative,” and warned that some two dozen countries currently have ballistic missiles and other WMD programs, including North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran.
Rumsfeld noted that the United States would have a limited defense by the end of the year, but stressed the importance that it continue to evolve to match the growing capabilities of those countries, terrorists, and other extremists who threaten America.
Perhaps most importantly, however, is that Rumsfeld apparently repeated his previous observations about the threat from a ship-launched ballistic missile. Gertz and Scarborough in the August 27 edition of Inside the Ring report the following from Rumsfeld:
Mr. Rumsfeld also was asked about the danger of terrorists or rogue states attacking the United States by putting a short-range Scud-type missile on a freighter and firing it close to U.S. shores.
He said one Middle East nation already has “launched a ballistic missile from a cargo vessel.”
“They had taken a short-range, probably Scud missile, put it on a transporter-erector launcher, lowered it in, taken the vessel out into the water, peeled back the top, erected it, fired it, lowered it, covered it up. And the ship that they used was using a radar and electronic equipment that was no different than 50, 60, 100 other ships operating in the immediate area.”
Other U.S. officials have said the nation was Iran, which tested a freighter-launched missile in the Caspian Sea in the late 1990s.
“It is true that the big distinction we make between intercontinental, medium-range and shorter-range ballistic missiles doesn’t make a lot of sense if you’re going to move the missile closer to the target,” he said.
These comments repeat almost verbatim his previous report, one month after 9-11, that such a thing had occured, as well as that by Asst. Sec. of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in 2002. (Article, Link)
» Transcript of Rumsfeld remarks
» More stories on: Iran, North Korea, Policy, Ship-Launched Threat, Testing - Foreign
