September 17, 2004
POLICY STATEMENT ON
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE
The Claremont Institute
National Security Project
A Time for Choosing
The attack of September 11 was accomplished with but four planes. If terrorists had instead employed nuclear armed ballistic missiles, the devastation would have been much worse. Had such a scenario or something similar already taken place, the need for ballistic missile defenses would today be uncontroversial, and both political parties would be ambitiously competing against each other to pursue them. It has not, and so political opposition remains.
The 9-11 Commission recently pointed out that a fundamental reason the attack was not prevented was due to a general “lack of imagination.” Before 9-11, no one took seriously the thought of using planes.
Believing it better to employ our imagination than to sit idly by until such a ballistic missile attack takes place, the Claremont Institute is launching a renewed project devoted to informing our countrymen of the threat posed by ballistic missiles, and the urgent need to defend against that threat.
The principles which guide this project are simple. First, our constitution puts forward the injunction that our government has the obligation to provide for the common defense. Second, America’s enemies are building ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Third, given this threat, missile defenses are a necessity. We have the capabilities, ingenuity, and energy to produce these defenses. The necessary technology for missile defense has long been available. The question remains, however, whether we possess the political will to use it.
Missile defense has been discussed and studied for over thirty years. As of today, the United States still remains defenseless against any form of ballistic missile attack. This fall, the United States will begin deploying the initial parts of a missile defense in Alaska and California. This initial deployment is important but is only the first of many steps which must be taken.
The initial deployment will at best defend against only a small attack by a few, long range missiles directed from certain quarters of the world against the Western United States. They are insufficient against either a larger attack, or a smaller attack from a ship-based missile located offshore near a major American city. It is important that Americans know the capabilities of our defenses, what they can and cannot defend against, for the simple reason that the initial limited deployment will lead many to falsely suppose that our nation is defended against all such threats, thus making the necessary evolution of our defenses easier to oppose.
We call upon on President George Bush and Senator John Kerry, and all other government leaders around the nation, to commit to deploying by 2007—-before the end of the next presidential term—-a missile defense architecture capable of defending against a Scud ballistic missile—-the most widely proliferated ballistic missile in the world—-launched from a ship off an American coast at any major city. The capabilities for such a defense already existed in 1992, but the program was cancelled by the Clinton administration.
Regardless of the specific missile defense architecture, a system must be deployed to deal with this near-term threat of an attack by a ship-launched missile. This is especially true since the option of attacking Alaska or the American West coast by a land-based North Korean missile will soon be effectively eliminated with the California and Alaska deployments.
Long range missiles are more difficult to produce, but short and medium range missiles are plentiful. The scenario of a ship-based attack is the easiest for a rogue regime or terrorist organization to accomplish tomorrow—-and the most difficult to defend against. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld took time to warn against such a scenario in October 2001—-one month after September 11. A short range missile fired a few hundred kilometers offshore would have a flight time of mere minutes. Therefore a defense must be capable of quick reaction times and the ability to intercept the missile from anywhere an enemy may choose to sail. A multimedia scenario of the ship-launched attack is available on our website, Missilethreat.com.
The time for choosing has come. For government officials and candidates everywhere who support a robust missile defense, we welcome you and ask that you join our call.
For those government officials or candidates who oppose missile defenses, we ask that you go on the record and articulate your opposition to the defense of America.
Brian T. Kennedy, President
Thomas Karako, Editor, www.missilethreat.com
The Claremont Institute
937 West Foothill Blvd.
Suite E
Claremont, CA 91711
(909) 621-6825
