Congressman Trent Franks Calls for Robust Defenses Following North Korean Nuclear Test
October 10, 2006 :: U.S. House of Representatives :: News
Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, yesterday called for robust missile defenses in light of North Korea’s recent nuclear test. “We must learn from Kim Jong Il’s defiance and realize the imminent threat that we face,” the Congressman stated. “We are still without a robust missile defense, our enemies continue searching for ways to destroy our country, and I’m afraid that if a country like Iran acquires these weapons their use would change the face of freedom forever.” Franks pointed out “the fact that much of this could have been handled years ago before North Korea acquired nuclear weapons.” When former President Bill Clinton was faced by the potential of a nuclear North Korea, his administration chose to appease Kim Jong Il with light water reactors and fuel oil shipments. Simultaneously, Clinton vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, which would have required the deployment of a missile defense system capable of defending all 50 states. Clinton at the time had argued that, “by forcing such an unwarranted deployment decision now, the bill would waste tens of billions of dollars and force [the U.S.] to commit prematurely to a specific technological option.” In his remarks yesterday, Franks reminded Americans that “history is a guide for the wise in order to protect our children and our children’s children. Let us learn from the mistakes of the past. We must strive to understand the mission of our enemy and realize the ominous threat they pose to freedom-loving nations.”
Full text of Trent Franks press release: (More »»»)
» More stories on: Policy, North Korea
MDA Promotes Head of Ground-Based Midcourse Defense
October 4, 2006 :: MarketWatch :: News
The Missile Defense Agency has recently promoted the head of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program to the agency’s number two position. Since mid-2005, Brigadier General Patrick O’Reilly has managed the GMD program as it struggled to get back on track following several test failures in late 2004 and 2005, when interceptor missiles failed to leave their silos. On September 1, 2006, the system successfully intercepted a test-target missile, winning O’Reilly praise from Capitol Hill for his focus and professionalism. He is slated to take up the Missile Defense Agency deputy post in January 2007, but will continue his role as program manager of GMD for the time being. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Policy
» Missile system details for: Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD), Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI)
Spring on Missile Defense Debate
September 20, 2006 :: The Heritage Foundation :: Analysis
The current lack of an effective missile defense is the product of a political process that makes it exceedingly difficult to reverse deeply entrenched policies, argues Baker Spring of the Heritage Foundation. For roughly 30 years, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty restricted missile defense research and development to inadequate options such as ground-based defenses deployed at fixed locations. The result was that the missile defense bureaucracy eventually became professionally defined within these narrow boundaries, and individuals currently working on these programs are reluctant to permit open competition between their programs and effective alternatives such as sea- and space-based assets now permitted by U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.
In addition, missile defense has fallen victim to what Spring terms “public choice theory.” Time and again, the American public has expressed strong support for missile defense. Yet when the question turns to which kind of missile defense system should be deployed, a vocal minority of hardened opponents prevails in its opposition to new technologies that would more effective, such as sea- and space-based interceptors. Political leaders move to embrace compromises that seek to satisfy both sides, favoring an outcome that “embraces strong statements of principle in favor of missile defense in deference to the majority and simultaneously marginalizes the most effective option for missile defense in deference to the vocal minority.”
Opponents are thus able to denounce the entire missile defense enterprise in the context of the limited system currently being deployed. Spring argues that missile defense proponents in Congress must extend their support to new and more effective technologies. “True support for missile defense must be tied to commitments to back the best possible missile defense system at an affordable price,” he writes. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy
Aegis BMD Gains Fleet Certification
September 12, 2006 :: Lockheed Martin :: News
The U.S. Navy and the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) have certified the latest version of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) weapon system for tactical deployment. The upgraded system, known as Aegis BMD 3.6 and carrying the Standard Missile-3 Block IA interceptor missile, enhances the ballistic missile defense capabilities of the current fleet of Aegis destroyers and cruisers. The new system was most recently tested on June 22, 2006, when it successfully destroyed a separating target launched atop a three-stage medium-range ballistic missile over the Pacific Ocean. The test marked the seventh time (out of eight attempts) that MDA had successfully shot down a target missile with a ship-launched interceptor, and the second time that Aegis had successfully intercepted a separating warhead. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Policy, Sea-Based Systems
» Missile system details for: Aegis Ship-Based BMD
Allard on Missile Defense
September 11, 2006 :: News
Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO), former chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Senate Arms Services Committee which oversees ballistic missile defense, spoke on the Senate floor about the recent successes of the Missile Defense Agency on Friday, September 8. Senator Allard made note of several successful intercepts in recent months, including the September 1 test of the ground-based interceptor launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, which destroyed an incoming missile, as well as recent tests of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3), Terminal High-Altitude Air Defense (THAAD), and the sea-based Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. Senator Allard praised MDA for learning from past setbacks, and argued that the U.S. missile defense system should be challenged even further. “We need more testing so that we can better understand the task at hand and discover the areas that must be improved,” he said. “I do not expect perfection. In fact, I expect some failures. But, in the context of several missile defense intercepts tests per year, one or two failures only means that we are pushing to find out the real capabilities of the system.” (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy
» Missile system details for: Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD)
Lockheed Martin Reports Major Foreign Interest in PAC-3 Upgrades
September 5, 2006 :: Jane's Information Group :: News
Lockheed Martin is in “serious discussions” with Turkey and other customers over Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) upgrades, reports the September 6 issue of Jane’s Defence Weekly. According to John Ward, vice president of international business development for Lockheed’s Missiles and Fire Control Unit, concerns over Iran and North Korea may lead to new international orders for the PAC-3 and other missile defense systems. “Just about every region in the Middle East [and] Pac [Pacific] Rim has serious enquiries going on for the missile,” he said. (Link)
» More stories on: Allies, Policy
» Missile system details for: Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3)
U.S. Looks to Faster, Cheaper Solid-Fuel Missile Propulsion
September 5, 2006 :: Jane's Information Group :: News
The U.S. Air Force is investigating the possibility of developing an improved family of solid-fuel rockets for intercontinental ballistic missile and satellite launchers, reports the September 6 issue of Jane’s Defence Weekly. The Air Force Flight Test Center, headquartered at Edwards Air Force Base in California, has awarded $49 million each to Aerojet General Corp and ATK Thiokol to research several types of improvements to solid-fuel rockets, making them fly further, faster, and for less money. Jane’s notes that these new solid-fuel rockets could serve as a potential launch platform for conventional weapons capable of hitting rogue nations and terrorist targets worldwide, a concept still in the development stages known as Prompt Global Strike. (Link)
» More stories on: Policy
U.S. Discusses Ballistic Missile Conversion with Russia
September 4, 2006 :: U.S. Department of State :: News
At their recent meeting in Fairbanks, Alaska, on August 27, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov discussed the Bush administration plan to arm Trident-2 ballistic missiles deployed on submarines with conventional, as opposed to nuclear weapons, reports the U.S. Department of State. The move would allow for rapid, pre-emptive strikes against rogue nations or terrorist organizations anywhere in the world. At the meeting, Rumsfeld suggested that Russia consider pursuing missile conversions as well. “If either of our countries or our friends and allies were threatened at some number of years into the future with a weapon of mass destruction or a capability that was that lethal, I think any president, whether of Russia or the United States, would like to have available a conventional weapon that could attack that party quickly and accurately and precisely and not feel that the only thing they had might be a nuclear weapon which they would not want to use,” he said. Ivanov noted his concern that such launches could be mistaken for a pre-emptive nuclear attack, potentially leading to a retaliatory strike. He stated that this criticism was a matter of particular concern for the Russian government and would require further discussions before Russia would support the proposal or convert any of its missiles. “These are preliminary plans,” the Defense Minister stressed, “I cannot announce right now that Russia will join such [an] initiative right now.”
The discussions between Rumsfeld and Ivanov follow the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee’s decision on July 20 to cut all but $5 million of the $127 million in initial funding for the Navy’s Conventional Trident Modification Program. In a report accompanying the defense appropriation bills, the Senate Appropriations Committee wrote its belief that “fundamental issues about the use of this weapon must be addressed prior to investing in this effort.” It added: “It is not clear that other potentially less provocative alternatives, such as land and air-based options, have been considered.” (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Nuclear Weapons, Policy, Russia
Rumsfeld Op-ed on Missile Defense
August 31, 2006 :: Chicago Sun-Times :: News
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld today published an op-ed in the Chicago Sun-Times on the current and future status of U.S. ballistic missile defense. The Secretary discussed the current missile threat faced by the U.S., the Bush administration’s rationale for leaving the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the steps currently being taken by the Pentagon to deploy a defensive shield, and the critical role of testing and experimentation. He described, in particular, the changing role of ballistic missile defense in the age of rogue nations, as well as what he sees as the current goal of the system:
… The system being put into place today differs from the all-encompassing “shield” once thought necessary to deflect a massive Soviet missile attack. The program today is more limited in scope, but one that is successfully evolving and expanding over time. The goal is to fashion a system that will be able to engage a volley of several missiles launched by a rogue regime at the United States or its allies.
(Article, Link)
» More stories on: Policy
Cooper and Pfaltzgraff on Need for Global, Multi-layered Missile Defense
August 30, 2006 :: The Wall Street Journal :: Analysis
Deployment of a multi-layered missile defense, including space-based systems, should be an urgent U.S. priority, argues Ambassador Henry F. Cooper and Dr. Robert Pfaltzgraff, in the August 28 edition of The Wall Street Journal. Dr. Pfaltzgraff is president of the Institute of Foreign Policy Analysis (IFPA) and Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies at Tufts University. Ambassador Cooper was the former director of the Strategic Defense Initiative and chief U.S. negotiator to the Geneva Space and Defense Talks, and is currently chairman of High Frontier, a missile defense advocacy group. Both participated in the Independent Working Group, which recently released the report Missile Defense, the Space Relationship and the 21st Century.
The authors write: “We should make it virtually impossible for any adversary—rogue states, non-state actors and larger strategic competitors—to influence U.S. decisions, or the course of regional conflicts, by threatening to launch missiles with nuclear weapons against the U.S., its deployed forces or its allies.” The U.S. needs a “continuously ready, global, multilayered system to provide multiple shots at attacking missiles and their warheads in all their phases of flight.” Such defenses would make a missile attack against the U.S. an expensive endeavor, and therefore less attractive for enemies to buy the technologies to overcome them. “The ABM Treaty era showed that it is the absence of defenses, rather than their presence, that encourages the development of offensive technologies.” To accomplish this, the U.S. should complete the ground-based sites in Alaska and California but build no additional ground-based sites. Limited resources would be better spent deploying more effective sea- and space-based missile defense components.
The U.S. has already invested $80 billion in over 80 Aegis-equipped warships armed with Standard Missile-3 interceptors, which provide an effective defense against cruise missiles. An additional investment of $100 million per ship, they write, would enable these flexible platforms to shoot down ballistic missiles, and thus provide an effective near-term defense capability. For a long-term global defense, the U.S. should invest in space-based systems that can intercept ballistic missiles in all phases of flight. The technology already exists in the form of Brilliant Pebbles, a space-based system developed during the Reagan and first Bush administrations but never completed. Brilliant Pebbles consists of a constellation of lightweight satellites that would release watermelon-sized interceptors into the path of the oncoming missiles and destroy them by impact. Cooper and Pfaltzgraff point out that all key technologies for Brilliant Pebbles were proven by the mid-1990s, and that the more advanced technology of today would provide such a system with even greater capabilities.
The full text: (More »»»)
» Read the 2007 report: The Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, and the Twenty-First Century (8 MB)
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy
» Missile system details for: Aegis Ship-Based BMD, Brilliant Pebbles
