Analysis of Pentagon “Semantics”
January 18, 2005 :: Washington Times :: News
Pamela Hass of United Press International writes on the Pentagon’s “semantics” of the past several months as regards formal deployment of the ballistic missile defense system. Hass correctly notes that for many months prior to September 2004, both the administration and the Missile Defense Agency indicated that some initial capabilities would be operational in 2004, and possibly by October of 2004. What appear to have been a number of delays have been followed upon by some level of ambiguity as to whether, if at all, the missile defense system would be fully operational, there being no formal declaration of its deployment, and in fact indications from both Secretary Rumsfeld and MDA head General Obering in the past month have been that there may never be a formal declaration. The most recent pronouncements have been that there currently exists some very limited capability to defend against ballistic missiles. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy
Gaffney on the Administration’s Kerry-like Defense Cuts
January 11, 2005 :: Washington Times :: News
President of the Center for Security Policy Frank Gaffney writes in today’s Washington Times on the 55 billion dollars in proposed cuts which are said to be planned for the upcoming defense budget. Gaffney aptly notes, with much justification, that lesser cuts would have been expected from a Kerry presidency, but are quite a surprise coming from the Bush administration:
Actually, a President-elect Kerry probably would not have dared suggest the far-reaching cuts Mr. Bush plans. And he surely would faced difficulty getting them enacted, given pervasive concerns about his judgment on national security. Yet, here we have the spectacle of $55 billion in extensive defense reductions being made by the man who beat Mr. Kerry—largely on the basis of precisely those concerns.
Gaffney goes on to observe that John Kerry had particularly promised to slash missile defense funding, and that the proposed cuts to the missile defense budget are probably not all that dissimilar from what a Kerry administration might have implemented.
Nowhere is it likelier that John Kerry would have cut back Pentagon spending than in the portfolio of the Missile Defense Agency. Yet, here too, President Bush is said to be considering $5 billion in reductions over the next five years. These could essentially eliminate the most promising means of performing boost-phase missile intercepts (namely, using an airborne laser and/or from space); preclude building out the initial, very modest deployment of ground-based interceptors; and sharply curtail sea-based anti-missile defenses. So much for the robust, layered missile defense Mr. Bush promised to put in place.
One may, incidentally, find a sampling of Kerry’s promises to cut missile defense on his website, JohnKerry.com. (Article, Link)
» June 3, 2004: Hackett on proposed defense cuts
» Kerry criticizes Rice plan to deliver speech on missile defense on 9-11
» Kerry pledges to reduce missile defense expenditures
» Kerry pledges to delay deployment of missile defenses
» More stories on: Analysis, Budget, Policy
Budget Cuts Document
January 10, 2005 :: News
The Navy Times acquired the text of the recently released Program Budget Decision 753, which recommends cutting the missile defense budget by one billion dollars in the coming fiscal year, and 800 million each subsequent year. Such cuts would have to be approved by Congress, but if implemented they could pose a significant blow to deploying a serious missile defense anytime in the near future. (Article, Link)
» Program Budget Decision 753, concerning BMD budget cuts (.pdf)
» More stories on: Budget, Policy
Nuclear Tipped Interceptor Proposal Rebuffed
January 7, 2005 :: Inside Defense :: News
The January 6 edition of Inside the Pentagon cites sources reporting that the Army Space and Missile Defense Command is revising a draft request for proposals which had originally expressed interest in nuclear-tipped interceptors for the purpose of ballistic missile defense. Inside Defense reports that defense officials have already removed the language. The language apparently referred to both possible directed energy and small nuclear warheads, but it was congressional opposition to the latter which apparently prompted the removal.
One might object to the use of nuclear tipped interceptors on the grounds that they are not necessary, and that effective technologies are possible with hit to kill, kinetic interceptors. In the absence of energetic support for even that program, however, nuclear tipped interceptors are certainly plausible as a last resort. Both Soviet-Russian missile defenses around Moscow and the short-lived U.S. missile interceptors based at Grand Forks, North Dakota in 1975, employed small (or, in the case of Russia, large) nuclear warheads which would obliterate any incoming missiles or warheads, regardless of any countermeasures. A nuclear explosion in space is not desirable, but it is better than one taking place on the ground. (Link)
» More stories on: Nuclear Weapons, Policy
Riverside Editorial on BMD
December 23, 2004 :: Analysis
The Riverside Press Enterprise newspaper here in California carried a timely editorial articulating the continued need for missile defense and putting into perspective the MDA’s recent attempt at a test, entitled, “Build the shield.” (More »»»)
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy
Spring on the Need to Deploy
December 22, 2004 :: The Heritage Foundation :: Analysis
Baker Spring of the Heritage Foundation considers last week’s attempt at a test of the ground based missile defense system, and reminds us how wrong opponents of missile defense have been in the past and still are today, and why we must push forward with such defenses. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy
Kansas City Star Editorial
December 20, 2004 :: Analysis
The Kansas City Star carried a very fine editorial on the need for perseverance despite the “unknown anomaly” which prevented the most recent test from taking place, and putting that minor setback in perspective. An excerpt: (More »»»)
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy
Administration Reaffirms Support for BMD
December 16, 2004 :: The White House :: News
Despite the inability of yesterday’s scheduled test to go forward, the Bush administration appears not to be caving to pressure to abandon the goal of missile defense. Administration spokesman Scott McClellan, when asked today whether the administration was still committed to missile defense, replied,
MR. McCLELLAN: The President remains firmly committed to moving forward on missile defense, a missile defense system. Missile defense is a high priority because it will help us better protect the American people against a potential limited long-range missile attack. And that’s why the President remains firmly committed to moving forward on an effective defense against the threat posed by the proliferation of long-range missiles.
My understanding, from the text you referenced, is that the interceptor missile launch was automatically stopped because of what the military describes as an “unknown anomaly.” We have had five successful tests of the eight. It’s important that we move forward on this because the President’s top responsibility is to do everything he can to protect the American people, and given the threats that we face in this day and age, missile defense is an important deterrent.
(Article, Link)
» More stories on: Policy
MDA: BMD Ineffective Against Russia and China
November 24, 2004 :: News
In a recent letter to the Kodiak Mirror newspaper, Missile Defense Agency spokesman Rick Lehner corrected a previous opinion piece which had asserted that the MDA is “preparing to launch lasers and interceptors into earth orbit.” Lehner pointed out that no such space-based systems are even contemplated and that the space-based laser research office “was shut down more than three years ago.” On November 18, Lehner confirmed as well the very limited character and capability of the systems which are being deployed this year. Lehner said quite simply that “this missile defense system being deployed is not a threat to either the Russian or the Chinese strategic deterrent force.”
Lehner accurately presents official policy, but this points to the problem with current policy. It is true that the United States is not seeking to deploy a strategic defense, and that it is specifically avoiding the space-based systems useful to that end. The arms controllers who vehemently opposed Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative are therefore wrong to attack the system and policy as such. The systems currently under development would still preserve a policy of mutually assured destruction, permitting enemy missiles to have a “free ride” to our territory and citizens.
The beginning of a limited deployment this year in Alaska and California is an important first step, but it is essential that such deployment be followed up with more ambitious and capable systems. Specifically, the proper direction for future missile defense should be toward space-based interceptors designed to counter the strategic threat posed by Russia and China. (Link)
» Nov. 18: Lehner: BMD systems no threat to Russian or Chinese nuclear arsenal
» Nov. 17: Lehner: Space-based lasers, interceptors not planned or even contemplated
» More stories on: Policy
New National Security Advisor Strong on Missile Defense
November 17, 2004 :: Los Angeles Times :: News
The Los Angeles Times today reports on the new National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley, and his strong support of ballistic missile defense and sound suspicion of previous approaches to arms control.
The former deputy national security advisor to Condoleezza Rice, Hadley has noted the folly of a complete repudiation of nuclear weapons, a policy which weakens, rather than strengthens, deterrence by inviting attack. Hadley also shepherded missile defense efforts, working as assistant secretary of defense in the administration of George H. W. Bush. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Policy
