First NATO-Russia Joint Missile Defense Exercise Should Raise Concern for Future of U.S. BMD
March 12, 2004 :: Jane's Information Group :: News
Under NATO auspices, the U.S. recently held a five-day joint missile defense exercise with Russia, lasting from March 8-12. The first such event was held at the U.S. space center in Colorado Springs, with some 60 participants from 10 NATO nations and Russia. While the exercise was quite limited, such cooperation should be viewed with some level of suspicion. Such joint exercises threaten to erode the sort of strategic clarity necessary to remember that Russia is not an ally, but indeed rather our “strategic competitor.” The concrete effect of such strategic obfuscation is that American missile defenses will not evolve into robust and comprehensive defenses capable of defending, but will be sharply limited to intercepting only second rate missiles from third rate countries.
The Command Post Exercise (CPX) consisted of computer simulations designed to “test equipment compatibility and other technical issues” related to “theatre missile defense,” i.e., those systems capable of intercepting short-range missiles.
Such cooperation has evolved from initial efforts in the mid-1990s under the Clinton administration. Missile defense cooperation may appear innocuous, even salutary. Yet there should also be a legitimate concern should these steps lead to more substantial cooperation, which prevents the limited missile defenses being deployed in Alaska and elsewhere from evolving into a defense capable of defending not only against rogue states, but especially against the Russian nuclear arsenal.
Such a partnership would effectively treat Russia as no less a threat than other nuclear powers such as Britain or France. As such, we would not even attempt to evolve our defenses to a level capable of defending against Russia or China. So far from missile defense’s promise overthrowing the dangerous doctrines of mutually assured destruction (MAD) or “strategic stability,” partnerships with Russia in the area of missile defense would only ensure that teh former Soviet Union retains the ability to threaten America with nuclear weapons for decades to come.
The NATO press releases emphasize the importance of “interoperability.” During the Cold War, interoperability, familiarily with allies’ systems, and interchangeable parts generally were important to unite NATO forces against a common enemy, the Soviet Union. Is America really prepared to trust the former Soviet Union as such an ally? We should not be. (Article, Link)
» NATO description of joint exercise
» Feb. 20, 2001: Bush Proposes Joint US-Russia BMD
» More stories on: Policy, Russia, Testing - American
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
Aegis Sale to Taiwan Initially Approved
March 8, 2004 :: Inside the Ring (Washington Times) :: News
In the weekly Inside the Ring, Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough note that the Pentagon has now for the first time approved the sale of the Aegis cruiser battle-management systems, which include the sea-based missile defense program.
As noted here, the Aegis system includes a large phased-array radar with a range to track objects of some hundreds of miles, and include satellites in space. The Aegis is described as the “core” of the sea-based missile defense system, now set to be deployed for the defense of America in 2005.
The approved sale comes less than two weeks before the March 20 referendum in Taiwan over whether missile defenses are the right response to the nearby Chinese missile buildup. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Allies, Policy, Sea-Based Systems, Taiwan
» Missile system details for: Aegis Ship-Based BMD
Taiwan to Purchase and Deploy Six Patriot Batteries by 2019—But Are They Enough?
March 3, 2004 :: Taiwan News :: News
Previous reports indicated that Taiwan would proceed with the purchase of three batteries of PAC-3 Patriot missile interceptors, but a news item by the Taiwan News now suggests that that number will increase, to six batteries, consisting of four launchers, which in turn each have 16 interceptor missiles. The plan is said to involve the deployment of the said batteries within 15 years, that is, by 2019.
The larger purchase would not, however, represent a complete defense of Taiwan against the considerable and growing Chinese threat. Even the larger purchase would mean only an additional 240 interceptors. Such a defense pales in comparison to the over 500 short range ballistic missiles China already has deployed near the coast of Taiwan, a number which increases at a rate of 75 to 100 per year. Currently, Taiwan is believed to have some 32 of the less advanced PAC-2 interceptors, spread between two batteries. Supposing China’s rate of increase was to hold steady at 75 per year, then by the time the six new batteries of PAC-3 are deployed by 2019, China could have 1,625 SRBMs with which to threaten their island neighbor. Against these, Taiwan could have only 416.
Although the 2019 deadline is somewhat late, a defense which consists of Aegis sea-based defenses as well, with additional interceptors there, would help narrow the gap. (Article, Link)
» Feb. 19, 2004: Despite Chinese bullying, Taiwan to proceed with Patriot BMD
» Jul. 24, 2003: Taiwan requests 3 batteries of PAC-3
» Mar. 3, 2004: Sale of Aegis to Taiwan approved
» More stories on: China, Policy, Taiwan
» Missile system details for: Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3)
THAAD Renamed
March 1, 2004 :: Honolulu Advertiser :: News
The Theatre High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense program has apparently been renamed, but its acronym will remain the same. The “T” in THAAD will now stand for now “Terminal,” referring to the last phase in a ballistic missile’s flight in which the interceptor destroys it. The Honolulu Advertiser cites a February 26 MDA release that the change better reflects its role in the nation’s Ballistic Missile Defense System.
A more complete explanation, however, may indicate that the change is more than bureaucratic: specifically, a belated updating of new policy language indicated by the December 16, 2002 National Security Policy Directive 23 of President Bush, which repudiated the artificial distinction between “theatre” and “national” missile defense. The reason THAAD was renamed, in other words, is because the term “theatre missile defense” is obsolete, made so by the 2002 withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.
The terms “theatre” and “national” which came into use due to constraints imposed by the ABM Treaty of 1972, and became important when accords were signed in the 1990s which permitted the development of “theatre” systems capable of intercepting short-range missiles, and “national” defenses capable of intercepting long-range ICBMs. By only permitting theatre defenses, the sacrosanct doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) with the former Soviet Union was left intact.
Although the distinction between theatre (short-range) and national (long range) missile defenses is obsolete, this does not mean that reliance upon a policy of mutually assured destruction (MAD) has similarly gone by the wayside. The revised deployment will have its own revised vocabulary designed to articulate the application of MAD to changed circumstances. The “limited” ground based missile defense system to be deployed this year in Alaska is designed to intercept long range missiles, but it will have too few interceptors to intercept more than a handful. For the immediate future, the dangerous policy of MAD will apparently remain intact vis a vis those countries—currently, Russia and China—capable of producing enough ICBMs to overwhelm such “limited” defenses.
Update: The March 3 edition of Inside Missile Defense notes that the tests this year will be the first in four years, and represent a substantially improved system. This, then, could be another impetus for a name change. (More »»»)
» Text of NSPD 23
» Dec. 17 White House Fact Sheet similar to NSPD-23
» Feb. 26 Memo from MDA THAAD office
» More stories on: Land-Based Systems, Policy, Testing - American
» Missile system details for: Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
60 Minutes Attacks Patriot Missile Defenses
February 25, 2004 :: CBS News :: News
A piece by 60 Minutes which attacks the Patriot missile defense system marks something of a turnaround with missile defense critics. For decades naysayers have complained that missile defense will not work, and speculated that it is impossible to hit a bullet with a bullet. A new tack now appears to be that missile defenses indeed work, but are too effective, locking on to planes as well as missiles. Of course, the Patriot was designed as both an air defense and a missile defense weapon. The friendly fire incidents are certainly tragic, but it is worth consideration how critics have shifted gears so completely.
Despite such objections, the PAC-3 is widely being bought by countries around the world. Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and many others are lining up to purchase the Patriot interceptor. (Article, Link)
» Rebuttal to 60 Minutes piece, by Patriot experts
» More stories on: Land-Based Systems, Policy
Aegis BMD May Be Deployed By Early 2005
February 25, 2004 :: National Defense :: News
According to the March issue of National Defense magazine, the Navy is preparing to put Aegis crusiers’ missile defense systems on alert by early 2005. The Navy’s current plan is said to be the deployment of three Aegis ships armed with interceptors capable of destroying short- and medium-range enemy ballistic missiles in their midcourse phase above the atmosphere. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: ABM Treaty, Policy, Sea-Based Systems
» Missile system details for: Aegis Ship-Based BMD
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
Army Orders 159 PAC-3 Interceptors
February 19, 2004 :: Lockheed Martin :: News
Lockheed Martin has received contracts to produce 159 PAC-3 interceptors and their related equipment for the Army. 22 Patriot missiles are said to replace those used during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The interceptors are expected to be delivered by 2006. Additional contracts include enhancements to the Patriot to make it more maneuverable. (Article, Link)
» Video of PAC-3 launch, interception
» More stories on: Land-Based Systems, Policy
» Missile system details for: Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3)
Bush Radio Address Points to Need for BMD
February 14, 2004 :: Department of Defense :: News
President Bush’s weekly radio address included an articulation of the need for missile defense, pointing to the possibility of ballistic missiles capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction. The sort of asymmetric, small threats from terrorists and rogue nations must not become a distraction from the continuing strategic, large, threats to our national security.
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. On September the 11th, 2001, America and the world saw the great harm that terrorists could inflict upon our country, armed with box cutters, mace and 19 airline tickets.
Those attacks also raised the prospect of even worse dangers, of terrorists armed with chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons. The possibility of secret and sudden attack with weapons of mass destruction is the greatest threat before humanity today.
America is confronting this danger with open eyes and unbending purpose. America faces the possibility of catastrophic attack from ballistic missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction, so we are developing and deploying missile defenses to guard our people.
(Article, Link)
» More stories on: Policy
