Issue Brief
80, December 12, 2002
Lessons From North Korean Scud Shipment to Yemen
The papers are full of authoritative reports on the recent interdiction of the North Korean vessel, “So San,” sailing unmarked and carrying over a dozen Scud missiles to Yemen, it turns out. Most of these stories point again to the nature of the proliferation problem – a very troublesome one indeed. The incident also points to additional lessons.
Issue Brief 79, November 26, 2002
Navy Hits in Ascent Phase: An Important Step for "Minutemen" Of Our Time!
On November 22, the Navy made it three hits in a row from the USS Lake Erie a few hundred miles from Hawaii, with its intercept of a ballistic missile fired from the Navy’s Pacific Missile Range on western Kauai. The earlier tests this year (in January and June) hit their target missiles above the atmosphere in space, after they had reached their highest points and were on the way back down. This time, the intercept occurred in space as the target missile was still rising – in its ascent phase. According to a Pentagon spokesman, the USS Lake Erie fire control officer had a window of only 70 to 85 seconds to detect the target and launch his interceptor.
This is an important achievement and should be
applauded. On the other hand, one has to wonder
why it has taken so long to get to this welcome stage – and whether the “powers
that be” will now at long last place the warranted top priority on making
sea-based defenses all they can be as soon as possible. After all, the USS Barney used
its air defense interceptor to intercept boosting rockets in the mid-1960s,
as was pointed out in High Frontier’s Issue Paper on August 8, 2002. And High Frontier has emphasized for years that the
Navy’s Aegis Fleet, in which the American taxpayer has invested over $60 billion
dollars, provides a ready infrastructure for rapidly and inexpensively building
a global defense.
Ambassador Henry F. Cooper, High Frontier’s Chairman and Director of the Strategic Defense Initiative during the first Bush Administration, observes, “On January 20, 1993, I left to the Clinton Administration a fully funded program that could have deployed a sea-based theater missile defense capability by the mid-1990s – if only it had been continued. But the program was delayed and underfunded – and, in 1995, the “Navy Theater Wide” system design was dumbed-down so that it could defend our overseas troops, friends and allies but not Americans at home. A sea-based system with even this reduced capability was further delayed by over a dozen critical reviews after 1995, all of which recommended that it proceed. In the late 1990s, congressionally mandated studies showed that sea-based defenses could play an important role in defending the U.S. homeland as well as our overseas troops, friends and allies – and could do so relatively quickly. But little was done to take advantage of this inherent capability – probably because of the ABM Treaty. Now that President Bush has discarded the Treaty, the Navy programs should be accelerated.”
Whatever may have gone before, the three successful
Navy demonstrations this year set a stage for programmatic acceleration. This also would be responsive to the recent Defense
Science Board summer study, which recommended that greater emphasis be given
to developing boost- and ascent-phase sea-based defenses.
So the time is ripe for moving ahead as quickly as possible to build
an initial operating capability – and then to improve it as quickly as possible.
Such accelerated development is also timely as
the possibility of war with Iraq grows. Indeed,
there are press reports that the Navy is preparing to use its Aegis system
to help protect Israel and other states in the region in the event
of such a war. Defense officials have said that
an emergency Aegis deployment to the eastern Mediterranean by January is being
planned to help defend against short- to medium-range missiles. Officials said the Navy has completed a series of
tests to determine the operability of the Aegis system with other missile
defense assets and is expected to participate in Israeli exercises. Israel has already deployed its Arrow system, largely
paid for by the American taxpayer, and the Patriot used in the 1991 Gulf War.
We should also move quickly to provide a sea-based
component to the defense of the American homeland. Probably the earliest such defense
would adapt the existing Aegis air defense system to provide an early boost-and
ascent-phase defense against short-range ballistic missiles fired from
container ships near our coasts. Defense Secretary
Rumsfeld recently called attention to this existing threat when he told the
Pentagon press corps on September 16 that “Countries have placed ballistic missiles in ships – dime a dozen
– all over the world. At any given time, there’s
any number off our coasts – coming, going. On
transporter-erector-launchers, they simply erect it, fire off a ballistic
missile, put it down, cover it up. Their radar
signature’s not any different than 50 others in close proximity.”
As we have been repeating for well over a year, the Navy has found that about 60 existing Standard Missile II, Block IV air defense interceptors can be given a rudimentary boost-phase intercept capability within a year for $100-200 million. We may need such a capability much sooner – and it is long past time to press it into action.
Those who man such defenses will be the Minutemen of our time – literally. They will have only about a minute to shoot down threatening ballistic missiles launched off our coasts at our cities. It can be done – as was demonstrated last week off the Hawaii shores. Let’s get them at their stations as soon as possible.On September 16, 2002, Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld told the press that “Countries have placed ballistic missiles in ships – dime a dozen – all over the world. At any given time, there’s any number off our coasts – coming, going. On transporter-erector-launchers, they simply erect it, fire off a ballistic missile, put it down, cover it up. Their radar signature’s not any different than 50 others in close proximity.”In response to questions about this “outlaw state” and about the possibility of one of these states being able to base ballistic missiles in a third country that may not even know that they're being used as a platform for missiles aimed at the United States, Secretary Wolfowitze clarified that “we need to be thinking out of the box” and “recognize the potential for things to develop in ways that we don't anticipate. . . We need to remember that there was a time when we said, I believe it was March of 1962, that it was inconceivable the Soviet Union would put missiles in Cuba. I believe in the 1980s when Saudi Arabia acquired long-range ballistic missiles from the Peoples Republic of China it took us completely by surprise –we think a relatively harmless surprise, but nonetheless a surprise.”Last Thursday, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz again identified this threat in his speech to a Frontiers of Freedom Conference on Capitol Hill: “The United States test launched a captured German V-2 rocket from the deck of a ship in 1947. And recently we have observed indications of an outlaw state attempting to do the same thing with a short-range ballistic missile from a ship. We need to ensure defense capabilities against a range of novel threats and enemy concepts of operation, not just the classic scenarios.”
The Navy has studied this option – with technical inputs from MIT’s Lincoln Laboratories, the Applied Physics Laboratory, and Lockheed Martin – and it can be done. This shouldn’t be surprising; High Frontier’s August 8 Issue Paper pointed to the USS Barney’s “proof-of-principle” test in the mid-1960s – with far less sophisticated computers, radar, and interceptors than with today’s SM-2 Blk IV system. The powers that be should take another look.High Frontier’s Chairman and former SDI Director, Ambassador Hank Cooper, recalls that former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on the heels of the 1991 Gulf War urged him to press for rapid technical achievements made possible by the focused attention that always comes in times of national crisis – as she had learned during the 1982 Falklands War. As U.S. leaders contemplate a war with Iraq in the not too distant future and consider our current total vulnerability to missile attack, they should heed her wise counsel and rapidly take all possible steps to protect America’s coastal cities, including from Scuds launched from ships among the 140 that approach U.S. ports each day.
The August 2002 Issue of Harvard Business Review included an article – “Inspiring Innovation” – that gave responses from some sixteen CEOs, entrepreneurs and inventors to the question, “What’s the one thing that you’ve done that most inspired innovation in your organization?” Air Force General Ron Kadish, Director of the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency, gave a startling answer that Harvard Business Review labeled:
"Mix People Up"
"One of the surest ways to get a job done more innovatively is, quite simply, to reorganize frequently. When you put people into a new structure, it stimulates them to rethink what they're doing on a day-to-day basis.
“I've reorganized the Missile Defense Agency on a major scale twice in less than two years. Why? We needed to transform ourselves from an organization dedicated to scientific experimentation to one focused on design and acquisition of weapons. The technologies we'd been working on for 20 years had become sufficiently mature that we could actually start developing effective systems, and the geopolitical environment had changed to the point where we had a mandate to move forward. We needed to orient people toward a new goal, and reorganization was one way to do that.
”It's traumatic for most people, especially in very hierarchical organizations
like ours. But on balance, I find that people respond well if you
can get them to focus not on the inconveniencies of restructuring but on
the satisfaction of setting high goals and then knocking down the barriers
to achieving them.”
Then there’s an older contrary view, commonly attributed to Titus Petronius Niger, Emperor Nero's “Arbiter Elegantiae”
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganization; and what a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization.''
What do you think?
While there are some errors in the following September
10th Oakland Tribune articles written by Ian Hoffman, they contain enough
relevant history to make them well worth reading – and relevant to Pentagon
decisions to fulfill President Bush’s campaign promise to build effective
defenses. Of the $30 billion – not $40 billion, as Hoffman claims
– spent by the Reagan and Bush I Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) on research
and development for advanced defenses against ballistic missiles, the billion
dollars spent on the Brilliant Pebbles space-based interceptor program was
by far the best investment of those 8-years.
Brilliant Pebbles became the first acquisition program fully approved by
the Pentagon’s acquisition bureaucracy in 1991.
Except for political correctness arguments – particularly
regarding the ABM Treaty, there is little doubt a system involving about
1000 small interceptor satellites could have been operational long before
now, protecting the entire world against ballistic missiles with ranges over
a few hundred miles – for well under $10 billion, i.e., less than half the
anticipated cost of either the more limited THAAD defense against theater
missiles or a single site ground-based defense against long-range missiles.
This space-based system could intercept attacking missiles as early as in
their boost phase before they deploy decoys, in their midcourse phase in space
if warheads can be distinguished from decoys, and high in the atmosphere during
reentry when atmospheric drag shreds light weight decoys away from the lethal
warheads. It would be a very cost-effective, inherently layered, defense
– well deserving of current support. Yet, the Bush II administration
is doing nothing to revive this important program – according Missile Defense
Agency officials.
For further background, see High Frontier’s August 13,
2002, Issue Paper – Back to the Future II: Space-Based Defenses, which, along
with other Issue Papers, can be found on High Frontier’s webpage – www.highfrontier.org.
Unlike any day since December 7, 1941, September 11,
2001 is etched into America’s collective memory banks – heralding the day
when al Qaeda’s despicable terrorist attack killed 3000 innocent civilians
and destroyed the World Trade Center and a section of the Pentagon.
Todd Beamer’s “Let’s Roll” battle cry also will long be remembered as initiating
a heroic counterattack by passengers on United Flight 93 that, as a consequence,
crashed into the Pennsylvania countryside rather than into its intended
target – the U.S. Capitol, according to Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh,
who claim to have planned the 9/11 attack. (Last Sunday’s London Times
reported that a tapped interview with these al Qaeda operatives will substantiate
the above claims, among others. It is scheduled be aired Thursday evening
on the Arab television station al-Jazeera, in a documentary for the 9/11 anniversary.)
As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wrote in the September
8th London Independent and this morning’s Asahi Shimbun (Japan), these events
fused America’s will to fight a war with terrorists around the world to the
bitter end:
“On 11 September, the terrorists who perpetrated their evil deeds against America successfully accomplished exceedingly complex and exquisitely timed acts of terrorism but, despite their precision, they made a huge miscalculation. They concluded that Americans would cower and hide, that the government of the United States would not undertake a worldwide response using all the financial, diplomatic, economic and military resources at its disposal. They believed that their financial networks were secure, that their sanctuaries would protect them, and that the world would have no stomach for such a fight.”President George W. Bush rightly declared an all-out war on terrorists and the states that harbor them – referring to at least three of these states – Iraq, Iran and North Korea – as an “axis of evil.” Throughout the past year, the vast majority of Americans have supported the President’s policies and actions to mobilize our troops and send them into battle in faraway places – and to build up our defenses here at home, because vast oceans no longer assure our safety from those who wish to kill us and destroy our way of life. Cold War Deterrence policies are not credible when terrorists – including women and children – are trained to give their lives just to kill Americans. We must defend against this real and present danger – which could be much more horrific than 9/11. Winning this war will take a long time, as President Bush has told us.
Bradley Graham, writing in today’s Washington Post,
revealed that the Defense Science Board is recommending that the Pentagon
increase the priority on building sea-based defenses against ballistic missiles.
If this advice is followed, the Bush administration will expedite improving
the Navy’s existing Aegis air defense system – a technical option long advocated
by High Frontier.
The U.S. taxpayer has already invested about
$60 billion in the Navy’s Aegis cruisers, which are operationally deployed
around the world. Clearly, it is prudent to exploit this investment
– and furthermore such a sea-based defense is a wise political move because
it will provide a clear path for participation by our friends and allies
in building and operating a global defense for the benefit of all.
The ultimate “vision” for a global sea-based defense
should include building a capable interceptor that fits in the existing Vertical
Launch System (VLS) – which not only is deployed on those cruisers, but also
on U.S. destroyers and the ships of several U.S. allies. Such interceptors,
deployed around the world on a mix of these ships would provide a global defense
by exploiting information from sensors deployed in many ways by the U.S.
and allies – and inter-netted together, similar to the architecture for the
Navy’s Cooperative Engagement Concept (CEC) for air defense.
Depending on the location of these ships – as they accomplish
their normal missions – and the threatening ballistic missile launch sites,
such interceptors can provide an inherently layered defense to intercept threatening
ballistic missiles:
· As early as in their boost-phase – while their rockets still burn
and before they release multiple weapons and decoys;
· In their midcourse phase above the Earth’s atmosphere where discrimination
between actual warheads and decoys can be a daunting technical problem; and
· In their terminal; phase, high in the Earth’s atmosphere as they
reenter and light-weight decoys are stripped away by atmospheric drag.
While realizing this ultimate vision should be actively
pursued, an early deployment focus should be placed on exploiting existing
capabilities:
· About 60 Standard Missile II, Block IV air defense interceptors
could be given a rudimentary boost-phase intercept capability within a year
for $100-200 million. (Such a capability could provide an early defense
against SCUDs launched from container ships off our coasts – a threat that
possibly exists today, according to the 1998 bipartisan Rumsfeld Commission
on the ballistic missile threat.)
· The Standard Missile III-Advanced Leap Interceptor recently tested,
which could obtain a limited operational midcourse defense capability within
2-3 years for an investment of about $2 billion more than already programmed
for Navy Theater Wide development.
To realize the longer term vision soon, it is important
to initiate development now of: 1) a new VLS-compatible interceptor missile
to achieve a higher velocity, and 2) a light-weight kill vehicle that, when
combined with the new VLS-compatible interceptor missile, will provide 6-7
km/sec capability to obtain the needed defense coverage. With the necessary
funding, a technology limited program – managed by the Navy like the Polaris
program of the 1950s-60s – should be able to produce an initial operational
capability of such a VLS-compatible interceptor within 5-6 years, possibly
achieving the above vision for a global sea-based defense within a second
Bush administration.
Maintaining a VLS-compatible interceptor is important
to assure flexibility of the U.S. fleet as it takes on a global defense mission,
and also to provide alternatives for our allies and friends to participate
in that global defense. For example, the U.S. and Japan might jointly
exploit both U.S. and Japanese Aegis cruisers deployed in the Sea of Japan
to protect both our nations against missiles launched from North Korea.
And we could work with our European allies and other friends along the same
lines. In addition to sea-based interceptors, land-based interceptors
should be inter-netted with radar and other sensors – based in many ways,
including on allied territory – to provide a worldwide, or global, network
to inform an appropriate command authority and enable the use of the global
interceptor network.
And all this could be accomplished cooperatively with
Russia – which retains active defense programs involving a national network
of interceptors and radar. Learning their lessons from their long experience
could be helpful to us and their defenses could fit into a global defense
architecture.
High Frontier applauds the step forward by the Defense
Science Board – and looks forward to seeing the Bush administration’s reinvigorated
sea-based defense program – a program that has been dormant for a decade
because of the central role given to the ABM Treaty which blocked even the
testing of sea-based ABM systems. It is a new day!!!
Anyone interested in a ballistic missile defense system
that can protect Americans at home and our overseas troops, friends and allies
more effectively than missile defense systems currently being developed and
for a fraction of their cost? What if such a global defense could be
operational within five years?
We knew how to do this a decade ago – even formulated
sound acquisition programs to make it happen. They fell on political
hard times, especially because the ABM Treaty banned development, testing
and deployment of such a system. But President Bush withdrew from the
ABM Treaty last June 13th, and a sound program could be quickly revived to
build the most cost-effective defense system conceived by the Reagan-Bush
I Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).
But we must overcome apparent collective amnesia – no
one seems to remember the state of affairs before Defense Secretary Les Aspin
in 1993 boasted the Clinton administration was “taking the stars out of Star
Wars” – and, among other things, cancelled all aspects of the Brilliant Pebbles
space-based interceptor program. Not only did he cancel this important
program, he purged Brilliant Pebbles concepts and technology from continuing
ballistic missile defense programs – denying significant advantages over technology
in which the Clinton Pentagon then invested over $30 billion.
After eight Clinton years and 18-months of Bush II with
the Clinton missile defense team still in charge, no trace of the important
features of either SDI’s most cost-effective defense concept or its most advanced
technology is discernable among currently ongoing missile defense programs.
Perhaps the records were destroyed during the Clinton years – although Dr.
Don Baucomb, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) historian who came to SDI during
the early 1990s, published an authoritative review of The Rise and Fall of
Brilliant Pebbles last October. Consider a few facts from the past:
One fine day, one of the world's most powerful warships moves steadily across a low sea at about 20 knots. Her crew is trained to a razor's edge, a normal state given the tensions around the world and the chance that at any time they must protect their homeland or fellow forces. The fire-control officer, one of the Navy's best, swears and barks out orders to the crew as he adjusts the settings on his interceptor-missile firing console. The old salt expects something.A scene from the near future as America faces the reality of terrorists armed with ballistic missiles and warheads of mass destruction? Possibly.
Meanwhile, about 20 miles away, a red-and-white-striped rocket sits poised on its launcher ready to leap into the sky and fly beyond the reaches of the atmosphere. Suddenly, the rocket roars to life as it ignites and climbs quickly into the sky, faster than any airplane. Radar detects and tracks the missile, following it on its way. Frantic calls are made to warn those in its path.
Within seconds, the warship's crew leaps into action as the missile appears on its display. The captain orders the fire-control officer to shoot it down — he mutters to himself as he tries to aim the Navy's best interceptor (designed to shoot down aircraft) at the burning rocket. He decides on a firing solution and fires two interceptor missiles at the threatening rocket still burning and climbing higher into the atmosphere. The interceptors streak toward the burning rocket, catching up quickly, but running out of time as the rocket accelerates toward altitudes beyond their reach. The fire-control officer struggles to keep his interceptors aimed at the rocket-outthinking the computer and entering guidance commands by hand to ensure the missiles remain on his best guess of an intercept trajectory.
Forty seconds after the rocket left the launcher, it dies in a fireball seen for 100 miles when the interceptors, almost out of fuel, overtake and destroy it. Debris falls harmlessly back into the sea. The warship's crew celebrates. The captain signals a thumbs-up to the fire-control officer for a job well done.
Also published by National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com) –
by Ambassador Henry F. Cooper, Chairman of High Frontier.
Issue Brief 71, August 1, 2002
Buyer Beware - Don't Believe Everything "Scientists" Say!
The uninformed often assume scientists are above reproach,
because they are supposed to reach carefully reasoned conclusions after deliberate,
exhaustive study. But some scientists depart from such rigor when they
wander into the policy realm and make political correctness arguments – especially
when they discuss space-based defenses, as illustrated by a recent Wall Street
Journal article (See below.) In an article more fitting for the Opinion
and Editorial Section, the respected Science Journal section quotes several
eminent scientists and “reports” that “Scientists (Again) Warn ‘Star Wars’
Threatens the Safety of Space Orbits.” The uninformed is left with the
impression that “scientists” persuaded the Reagan and first Bush administrations
to refocus the SDI program away from space defenses because they were “at
best technically impractical and at worst a violation of physics.”
Nonsense! Politics, not science, killed Brilliant
Pebbles, derisively described in the subject article as involving “more
enthusiasm than realism.” Brilliant Pebbles was SDI’s first truly
cost-effective, relatively inexpensive, near-term space-based interceptor
system. And as President Clinton’s Defense Secretary – Les Aspin –
graphically bragged, the Clinton administration “took the stars our of “Star
Wars.” The Clinton program focused on ground-based interceptor systems
(with at most minor variance from the ABM Treaty) that are far less effective
and far more expensive than Brilliant Pebbles. The widely held opposite
view is a myth, as wrong as medieval claims that the Earth is flat.
This truth was clearly demonstrated by exhaustive analyses
by the Pentagon’s independent cost analysis group during the first Bush administration
and reflected by fully scrubbed and approved Brilliant Pebbles and Ground-based
Interceptor System Major Defense Acquisition Programs. Now that the
ABM Treaty is no more, a serious fully funded program can develop, test and
deploy a global space-based defense for a fraction of the cost of the first
Ground-Based Interceptor site in Alaska, and on the same timeframe.
The needed technology was mature a decade ago – demonstrated in 1994 by the
Clementine mission to the Moon that space qualified the Brilliant Pebbles
sensor suite and a Astrid test that proved the Pebbles’ miniature propulsion
technology. Politics, not science, now impedes reviving such programs.
The Science Journal article also adopted a “Chicken Little
sky is falling” approach to exaggerating the debris that would be produced
by using Brilliant Pebbles to destroying ballistic missiles and their weapons
in space. Those claims are also grossly in error, as argued by Dr. Lowell
Wood (Brilliant Pebbles’ Director during the Reagan and first Bush administrations)
and High Frontier’s Ambassador Cooper, who directed the SDI program during
Bush I. (See below.)
Science Journal
Scientists (Again) Warn 'Star Wars' Threatens The Safety Of Space Orbit
By Sharon Begley/ Wall Street Journal/July 12, 2002
From the moment President Reagan announced on March
23, 1983, that the U.S. should launch a Strategic Defense Initiative to
shield the country from enemy missiles, some of the fiercest opponents of
"Star Wars" have not been starry-eyed pacifists. They've been scientists.
The Pentagon listened. Both the Reagan and (first) Bush
administrations dialed back or shifted the focus of SDI when physicists pointed
out that some schemes, like space-based lasers and neutral particle beams,
were at best technically impractical and at worst in violation of the laws
of physics.
Now physicists are hoping the space warriors listen again.
A new risk -- this one to the nation's $125 billion-a-year space industry
and to intelligence satellites -- has emerged with the revival of a once-discredited
idea: space-based missile intercepts and antisatellite weapons (ASATs).
"Even one war in space would create a battlefield lasting
forever," says physicist Joel Primack of the University of California, Santa
Cruz, "encasing the planet in a shell of whizzing debris that would make space
near Earth highly hazardous for peaceful as well as military purposes."
Space-based systems to intercept missiles and destroy
hostile recon and tracking satellites are back on the agenda for two reasons.
The scrapping of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty last month lifted
the ban on unlimited testing of such systems. And the Pentagon, which has
focused on midcourse missile intercepts, recently asked for proposals for
boost-phase intercepts, which destroy intercontinental ballistic missiles
on launch.
The Bush administration's budget requests show a clear
interest in at least two low-Earth-orbit systems: lasers and kinetic kill
vehicles.
Those of you with long memories will remember the latter
as "Brilliant Pebbles," a Reagan-era program whose goal (never realized)
was to launch 1,000 minisatellites to spot enemy ICBMs and take them out.
"There was more enthusiasm than realism around Brilliant Pebbles," says physicist
Jeremiah Sullivan of the University of Illinois. "But with the end of the
ABM treaty, almost every idea ever put out there is making a comeback."
That's what concerns both physicists and arms-control
advocates. Low-Earth orbit, from roughly 180 to 1,200 miles up, is the space
equivalent of the Long Island Expressway on a Friday evening in August: "Crowded"
doesn't begin to describe it. This belt is home to important astronomical
satellites, including the Hubble Space Telescope at 375 miles. The International
Space Station orbits about 250 miles up. Earth-observing satellites that
study climate are here, too, as are military and mobile-phone sats.
All are highly vulnerable to space debris. The U.S. Space
Command tracks some 9,000 objects larger than 4 inches in diameter; more than
100,000 pieces larger than a marble whiz around in near-Earth orbit. As a
result, small satellites 480 miles up have about a 1% chance per year of
a fatal collision. Launching and testing Brilliant Pebbles redux would add
to the risk significantly. But the real disaster would arise if an enemy blew
up a Pebble or two. That, says Dr. Primack, could trigger "a chain reaction
of destruction that would leave a lethal halo around Earth."
Physicist Sally Ride of the University of California,
San Diego, America's first woman astronaut, recalls a run-in with space debris.
An orbiting fleck of paint from God-knows-where hit the shuttle's window,
creating a small gouge. A fleck of paint is nothing compared with the hunks
of metal, orbiting at 17,000 mph, that ASAT testing would create, she warned
in a lecture at Stanford University this spring.
Tests of space weapons could create enough debris to
threaten the lives of astronauts aboard the space station, says Clay Moltz
of the Monterey Institute of International Studies.
Worse, any country that felt threatened by America's
space armada "would only have to launch the equivalent of gravel" to destroy
it, says Dr. Primack. That would make near-Earth orbit unusable, and not
just briefly. Debris 500 miles up stays there for decades before atmospheric
drag pulls it down; anything above 900 miles essentially is up forever.
The Pentagon is sharply split on space-based weapons.
Many political appointees are gung-ho, but the operations side is leery,
sources say. (The Missile Defense Agency declined to comment.)
Dr. Moltz is holding a seminar on space debris for key congressmen and staffers
on July 24. Keep Brilliant Pebbles from rising again, before near-Earth orbit
is put off-limits.
Hit-To-Kill Intercepts In Near-Earth Space/ Wall Street Journal/July 23, 2002
The essence of the assertions related in your usually
excellent Science Journal column on July 12 was that the space-based defenses
against ballistic missile attacks known as Brilliant Pebbles would load
near-Earth space with quantities of debris so large as to be fatal to all
manner of orbital operations -- so seriously so that Pebbles themselves would
be vulnerable to their own debris. Of course, all such issues were exhaustively
considered by nearly a dozen separate teams of independent reviewers -- totaling
about 500 physics and engineering professionals in all -- in 1989-90, before
the Bush I administration formally adopted Pebbles as the first Major Defense
Acquisition Program of the Strategic Defense Initiative. These review teams
all determined that there were no substantive issues of this type, including
possible enemy use of "engineered space debris" against Pebbles-in-orbit.
While all such Defense Department-sponsored analytic
efforts tend to be dismissed by the anti-defense left as the work of knaves
or fools, the well-known facts are that Defense has been doing hit-to-kill
intercepts in near-Earth space since the F-15 antisatellite, Homing Overlay
and Delta 180 experiments of the mid-'80s, and is currently doing so every
few months. Of course, there have been no adverse consequences reported from
any of these major hypervelocity collision events, which generate literally
millions of sand-grain-sized pieces of space debris, by anyone at all. The
undeniable fact is that the sky hasn't fallen in after any or all of these
relatively huge debris-engendering tests.
Moreover, Pebbles were comprised of individual masses
about a factor-of-ten smaller than those of the hit-to-kill interceptors
currently being tested, and space debris generation is proportional to the
masses of the space vehicles involved in any given collision, so that each
of these recent "super-sized" tests underscore just how badly in error is
the "even one or two Pebbles ruin near-Earth space forever" forecast given
credence in Science Journal. Finally, modern Pebbles are spec'ed to fly in
orbits of about 200 miles altitude, and generally to strike downward at ballistic
missiles-in-flight, so as to intercept even the fastest-burning attacking
missiles before they complete boost-phase, in what is aptly labeled "Peregrine
mode."
Typical Pebble intercept altitudes, at which the collision
debris is generated, are 50-150 miles, where the residual atmosphere drags
down collision debris on time-scales of seconds to minutes -- and far lower
than those at which recent midcourse defense-testing collisions have been
made to occur. The residual air densities at the much higher altitudes mistakenly
guessed by the critics as pertinent to Pebbles of any vintage are exponentially
smaller, and the inversely proportional orbital lifetimes of debris created
at these altitudes thus are several orders-of-magnitude larger than those
relevant to Pebbles.
Lowell Wood, Palo Alto and Livermore, Calif.
Henry F. Cooper, Great Falls, Va.
(Mr. Cooper holds a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering and was director
of the Strategic Defense Initiative during the first Bush administration.
Mr. Wood holds a Ph.D. in physics and directed the Brilliant Pebbles program
at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories during the Reagan and first Bush
administrations.)
Issue Brief 70, June 19, 2002
Early Sea-based Defenses – Better Late than Never!!!
Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal carried an important
article by Greg Jaffe, “Pentagon Could Begin Deployment of Some Missile
Defenses By 2004.” This article quotes Missile Defense Agency Director
LGen. Ron Kadish as saying that he expects to recommend an accelerated schedule
to begin operating sea-based defenses by 2004 – faster than “many experts”
had expected. At long last, acknowledgment of the obvious – as far as
it goes.
LGen. Kadish’s experts certainly never included the Strategic
Defense Initiative (SDI) and Navy experts who, a decade ago, initiated Navy
programs to accomplish that objective long before now. Nor did they
include Navy experts that continued to recommend such programs throughout
the Clinton era and into the Bush II era (when they have been blocked at every
turn). Indeed, sea-based deployments are possible even earlier than
LGen. Kadish now admits is possible.
Last summer, the press reported Navy studies that
recommended relatively inexpensive options that can be exercised in a staged
way to begin defending the United States homeland within a year after approval
– approval that never came:
· Within 12 months for a few hundred million dollars,
the Aegis system’s existing air defense missile can be given a boost-phase
intercept capability useful in some scenarios to shoot down North Korean missiles
as they rise from their launch pads. This capability could – in concert
with existing coastal radar systems and Coast Guard operations – help protect
metropolitan areas from short range SCUDs that might be launched from tramp
steamers off all our coasts – e.g., near Boston, New York, Norfolk, etc.
In the context of September 11, this is an appropriate homeland security
concern.
· A second stage of sea-based defense could begin
protecting American cities within 2-3 years for about $2 billion more than
already programmed for the Navy Theater Wide program. Aegis cruisers
operating normally around the world could be given the capability to destroy
attacking missiles in their boost- and mid-course phases and so protect a
large portion of the United States – as well as our overseas troops, friends
and allies. This upgrade may be consistent with LGen. Kadish’s suggested
program which he says could reach deployment in 2004 – the difference in cost
estimates could be associated with how many ships are used and whether operational
costs for 20-years are included.
· These near-term sea-based defenses could later
be substantially improved, still for costs on the order of $10 billion.
Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal article says the Pentagon has given up on
building a near-term boost-phase intercept capability. Wrong answer
– and reflective of a very pessimistic view. Not only do recent Navy studies
show a rudimentary boost-phase capability is possible within a year – Navy
test programs first demonstrated a boost phase intercept capability in the
1960s when the USS Barney shot down boosting Corporal and Redstone rockets
with Terrier interceptors – and in 1971, the Navy’s Applied Physics Laboratory
concluded that such past testing indicated a high kill probability – and that
the endurance and readiness of such ship-based defenses can be achieved.
What did they know that we don’t?
Now that the ABM Treaty no longer blocks the logical
extension of that early testing, the Navy should be given the funds to expedite
the development and testing of systems that can give us this early operational
capability. Needed is a positive attitude – and dedicated competent
engineering and management.
Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal article also indicates
that someone needs to take a fresh look at the key technology needed to
support a sea-based architecture. Apparently, LGen. Kadish believes
that ground-based and sea-based defenses should use the same interceptor.
Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
Using the Army’s ground-based interceptor kill vehicle
would inevitably doom the sea-based system to building an expensive large
new interceptor missile (and therefore a new larger Vertical Launch System)
to carry a heavier kill vehicle than current – actually old but ignored
– technology makes possible. Such a large missile would lead to ships
being dedicated to a missile defense role – adding expense and reducing
the utility of those ships.
A better alternative is to use SDI’s Brilliant Pebbles
technology, which was politically incorrect throughout the Clinton era because
of its SDI heritage, to enable a sea-based interceptor missile that would
fit into the existing Vertical Launch System and be deployed wherever the
current Aegis cruisers go. Such a system would be much less expensive,
and improvements could result more rapidly by using Under Secretary Aldrich’s
vaunted “spiral development” process.
States Ambassador Henry F. Cooper, High Frontier’s
Chairman, “Clearly needed is a fresh look at Navy missile defense options,
free of the Army-centric, ground-based focus of the past nine years.
That focus was deliberate because only minor changes from the ABM Treaty
were tolerated. We need to move beyond that most unhelpful bias.”
Especially needed is a dedicated program like the Navy
Polaris program that delivered within four years our first operational strategic
submarine and its submarine launched ballistic missiles – ahead of schedule
and below budget. With a top national priority, like that endorsed by
then President Dwight Eisenhower, a streamlined Navy management team can again
deliver for the nation.
Issue Brief 69, June 14, 2002
Another Hit For Navy Theater Wide!!!
Last night, the Navy again successfully tested its
Navy Theater Wide (NTW) interceptor by shooting down an Aries rocket – a
hundred miles above the sea – fired from the island of Kauai. An Aegis
Cruiser, the USS Lake Erie, acquired and tracked the target rocket from its
location off the coast of Hawaii, computed an intercept solution, and launched
its test interceptor – and repeated its January 25 feat of destroying the
target by directly hitting it above the Earth’s atmosphere.
This successful test is another major step forward for
the Navy’s efforts to improve its existing Aegis-based air defense system
to protect our overseas troops, friends, and allies against missile attack.
And the really good news is that, since yesterday the U. S. also withdrew
from the ABM Treaty, this sea-based system now can be tested and built also
to defend the American homeland – for a relatively small investment in the
relatively near future.
Says Ambassador Henry F. Cooper, High Frontier’s Chairman,
“We have known for years that, for a small percentage of the $60 billion the
U.S. taxpayer has invested in Aegis system, we can rapidly begin operating
a sea-based defense and improving it with block changes as new technology
is tested and proven. Working with the Chief of Naval Operations and
Secretary of Navy level, I began such a program while serving as Director
of the Strategic Defense Initiative under the first President Bush – with
then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney’s blessing, the Pentagon fully budgeted
to build and begin operations of such a capability years ago.”
The Clinton Administration scuttled that program – no
doubt because of their higher priority for the ABM Treaty than building effective
defenses. And they “dumbed down” the anemically funded sea-based defense
programs they did reluctantly continue – under persistent pressure from Congress.
The Clinton Administration resisted spending the money Congress added year
after year; instead they conducted study after study of the merits of sea-based
defenses. Every study – over a dozen by inside and outside experts –
was positive. But the Clinton Administration delayed and dissembled
– and refused to provide even Congressionally mandated study results to the
Congress.
And the fight is not over. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI)
used the Democrat majority on the Senate Armed Services Committee to draft
recent legislation to continue to curtail this important program even in its
ABM Treaty compliant “Theater Missile Defense” form as proposed by the Bush
Administration. His proposed legislation would also constrain other
important missile defense programs that now, in the absence of the ABM Treaty,
also can be pursued in earnest.
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has written to Congressional
leaders to say he would recommend that President Bush veto such a Bill.
Hopefully, the full Senate will stand with the President and reject the
SASC Bill – or, failing that, the House will avoid such offensive restraints
and prevail in the House-Senate Conference in the Fall. If not,
the President can again impose his will against those devotees to the ABM
Treaty with his veto pen.
This is an important matter – because such a defense
is needed as quickly as possible. There have been press reports, for
example, that Al Qaeda already may have up to 100 SCUD missiles that Osama
bin Laden could attempt to launch from ships off our coasts at cities where
most Americans live. Even when the Alaska site – which begins construction
this Saturday now that the Treaty is dead – is completed, it cannot defend
against this threat. We need the kind of defenses that NTW and other
systems can provide to counter that near-term threat. Happily, such
near term defense options are available.
According to press accounts last summer, past Navy studies
concluded that relatively inexpensive options can be exercised in a staged
way to begin defending the United States homeland and within a year:
· Within 12 months for a few hundred million dollars,
the Aegis system’s existing air defense missile can be given a boost-phase
intercept capability useful in some scenarios to shoot down North Korean missiles
as they rise from their launch pads. This capability could – in concert
with existing coastal radar systems and Coast Guard operations – help protect
metropolitan areas from short range SCUDs that might be launched from tramp
steamers off all our coasts – e.g., near Boston, Annapolis, Norfolk, etc.
In the context of September 11, this is an appropriate homeland security
concern.
· A second stage of sea-based defense could begin
protecting American cities within 2-3 years for about $2 billion more than
already programmed for the Navy Theater Wide program, which conducted last
Friday’s test. Aegis cruisers operating normally around the world could
be given the capability to destroy attacking missiles in their boost- and
mid-course phases and so protect a large portion of the United States – as
well as our overseas troops, friends and allies.
· These near-term sea-based defenses could later
be substantially improved, still for costs on the order of $10 billion.
Senator Levin and his colleagues should cease their interference with the
needed efforts to build the best defenses possible as quickly as possible;
and Pentagon authorities should conclude their studies of sea-based defenses
and begin – now – building real capability for America, as well as our overseas
troops, friends and allies!!!
Issue Brief 68, June 12, 2002
Countdown to a New Beginning – Sans the ABM Treaty
On December 13, President Bush announced the United
States was withdrawing from the ABM Treaty – under the Treaty’s own terms,
it will cease to be tomorrow on the six month anniversary of that announcement.
Hallelujah!
Finally, after 30 years of abiding by this treaty that
sought to make a virtue of America’s vulnerability, America’s scientists
and engineers can employ our best technology to build truly effective ballistic
missile defenses. This is a welcome new beginning, indeed!
We should celebrate, for sure. But, understand
that the fight to end America’s vulnerability to even a single ballistic
missile and to build a truly effective defense is far from over.
In the first place, none should believe it will be easy
to establish an innovative Pentagon program to fully exploit technologies
that were banned even from being tested for the past 30-years.
And the Pentagon bureaucracy has forgotten where it was just a decade ago,
after nine years of Ronald Reagan’s SDI program and a $30 billion investment
in innovative technology – even though such technologies could not be fully
tested.
The Clinton Pentagon scuttled the most advanced technology
work – including critical work to defeat countermeasures of continuing theater
defense programs. The budget for such R&D was reduced from well
over $1 billion a year to a few tens of millions a year. And, so far,
the Bush II Administration has done little to revive this important work –
even though it is pressing ahead with an $8 billion-a-year program that has
as its centerpiece an extension of a Clinton Administration program that was
designed to require only marginal changes from the ABM Treaty.
There are signs that the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency
(MDA) is beginning to look again at the critical technologies – although their
minimal effort appears to be “reinventing the wheel” – and not as good
a wheel at that.
For example, this week’s Aviation Week described “new”
initiatives that “may” show the need for other than infrared sensors for interceptors
– perhaps, ultraviolet or laser radar sensors – and said that heavier Navy
interceptors would be required to acquire more maneuverability. But
a decade ago during Bush I, SDI’s Brilliant Pebbles program developed to
the testing stage a lightweight comprehensive sensor suite and propulsion
system that would enable a lightweight, highly maneuverable Navy interceptor
– not to mention a truly effective space-based interceptor. These
sensors and the propulsion system were space-qualified in 1994 – then abandoned
by the Clinton team because of their SDI heritage.
Are they also politically incorrect in the Bush II Administration?
Hopefully not – but substantial bureaucratic impedance in the Pentagon must
be overcome if they are to see the light of day.
Significant external political forces will also continue
to impede progress in reviving key technologies. For example, Senator
Carl Levin, the powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee,
has compelled, through a party-line vote, a $800 million cut to the President’s
missile defense budget for next year – preferentially cutting space defenses,
the Navy programs, and other activities that would exploit the most advanced
technology. Senator Levin is also seeking restrictive language preventing
the Pentagon authorities from employing the best technology. Last week,
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld wrote to legislators that he would recommend a
Presidential veto if those funding and legislative constraints remained in
the Defense Authorization Bill sent for the President’s signature.
Yesterday, in a last gasp attempt to halt the withdrawal,
31 Democrat Congressmen, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) filed a law
suit charging the President with exceeding his Constitutional authority by
withdrawing from the ABM Treaty and he seeks to require the President to
seek Congressional approval. This attempt follows Rep. Kucinich’s effort
last week to obtain such a constraint by legislation – it failed by a vote
of 254 to 169. The Supreme Court upheld President Carter’s 1979 unilateral
decision to end the U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan – so Mr. Kucinich’s
current effort seems likely to fail, also. But, rest assured, his fight
to constrain our defense programs will continue.
And don’t imagine that we have seen the last of political
pressure from the Russians – and our allies who have expressed concern about
our leaving the ABM Treaty. Last week, Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov
told the new NATO arrangement that now includes Russia of Russia’s intention
to work on a European missile defense system, while he continued to express
reluctance in accepting the end of constraints on America’s efforts to build
effective defenses for the United States against long-range missiles.
So, let us celebrate the end of the era when U.S. policy
adopted Mutual Assured Destruction theology – and now dedicate ourselves
to fight for the best defenses we can build with America’s best technology
as soon as possible.
Issue Brief 67, May 29, 2002
Welcome Home, and Mucho “Attaboys,” Mr. President
President George W. Bush is returning home from a magnificent
trip abroad – things couldn’t have gone better for the President – and more
importantly for all Americans.
We at High Frontier applaud President Bush’s interactions
across the board, but particularly in Russia. We were apprehensive
about the “Moscow Treaty” and the opening that it provided to link those
two-thirds reductions in offensive nuclear weapons to continuing constraints
on America’s ability to build effective defenses against ballistic missiles.
After all, Russia’s Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, on
the eve of the President’s trip, told Russia’s State Duma and Federation
Council International Affairs Committees that “The text of the new treaty
contains a direct reference . . . on a linkage between the offensive
and defensive arms” – and that this linkage would “enable us to continue
talks on the entire range of issues of Antimissile defense after the USA’s
withdrawal from the ABM Treaty of 1972.” He also claimed that a declaration
on new strategic relations to be signed would reflect Russia’s view that
the U.S. National Missile Defense system must “be limited in its nature and
must not pose a threat to Russia’s strategic interests and global stability.”
But no such comments are to be found in either the Moscow
Treaty of the Declaration on Strategic Relations signed by Presidents Bush
and Putin. In fact, the Treaty is completely silent on the ABM Treaty
and defenses against ballistic missiles. And here’s what the Declaration
on Strategic Relations says about missile defenses:
“The United States and Russia acknowledge that today's
security environment is fundamentally different than during the Cold War.
“In this connection, the United States and Russia
have agreed to implement a number of steps aimed at strengthening confidence
and increasing transparency in the area of missile defense, including the
exchange of information on missile defense programs and tests in this area,
reciprocal visits to observe missile defense tests, and observation aimed
at familiarization with missile defense systems. They also intend to take
the steps necessary to bring a joint center for the exchange of data from
early warning systems into operation.
“The United States and Russia have also agreed to
study possible areas for missile defense cooperation, including the expansion
of joint exercises related to missile defense, and the exploration of potential
programs for the joint research and development of missile defense technologies,
bearing in mind the importance of the mutual protection of classified information
and the safeguarding of intellectual property rights.
“The United States and Russia will, within the framework
of the NATO-Russia Council, explore opportunities for intensified practical
cooperation on missile defense for Europe.
“The United States and Russia declare their intention
to carry out strategic offensive reductions to the lowest possible levels
consistent with their national security requirements and alliance obligations,
and reflecting the new nature of their strategic relations.”
According to High Frontier’s Chairman, Ambassador Henry
F. Cooper, these words are reminesent of U.S. proposals to the Soviet Union
he tabled in the Geneva Defense And Space Talks during the 1980s, intended
to foster U.S. and Soviet cooperation on building effective defense and moving
away from confrontation and the Cold War theology of Mutual Assured Destruction
(MAD). That was Ronald Reagan’s vision – and now, thanks to President
Bush’s resolve and adavocacy of effective missile defenses, we stand on the
threshold of seeing the Gipper’s vision realized.
Interestingly enough, after the Moscow and St. Petersburg
meetings between Presidents Bush and Putin, Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov
had nothing to say about his prognogstitations and warnings on missile defense
linkage prior to the summit. Rather, he meekly said only that Russia
and the U.S would continue their dialog on missile defense – and that they
would “begin expanding their relations in new conditions.”
New conditions, indeed!!! In just over two weeks,
the United States will withdraw from the ABM Treaty – and America’s engineers
will at last be free, after 30-years of bondage to that Treaty, to build effective
defenses to protect Americans at home and our overseas troops, friends and
allies. Only our own reticence will limit the possibilities.
Still, there will be a political struggle to build the
defenses we need. For example, as the President was leaving the country
to meet Mr. Putin and our often reluctant European allies, the Democrat controlled
Senate Armed Services Committee cut over $800 million from the President’s
missile defense budget. The House leadership seems disposed to fight
to restore those cuts – as they should. And we haven’t heard
the last of Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov and others of like sentiment –
in Russia, among our erstwhile allies and from the arms control elite here
at home. So, the fight goes on.
But this was a week to remember – for the President and
all Americans. Thank you, Mr. President. Welcome home!!!
Issue Brief 66, May 16, 2002
New Arms Reductions Treaty – Avoiding A Slippery Slope ?
President George W. Bush announced Monday that, when
he and Russian President Vladimir Putin meet in Moscow next week, they will
sign a treaty to reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, a treaty he said
will lead to a new era of “enhanced mutual security, economic security, and
improved relations.”
The President began his Administration expressing no
interest in continuing the Cold War pattern of signing treaties with the
Soviet Union and Russia, and now he claims this particular treaty “will liquidate
the legacy of the Cold War.”
Maybe – hopefully – this is the end-of-the-line in which arms control has,
at best, served as a diplomatic crutch to help the U.S. and Soviets/Russians
move from confrontation to cooperation as the basis of their strategic relationship.
The treaty legitimates the plans of both sides; a possible
downside is that related political pressures – especially those imposed by
our Congress – will lead to unilateral constraints on U.S. programs even though
they are in no way required by this or any other treaty.
But President Bush has played his hand masterfully, and
there is hope we can avoid sliding down this “slippery slope.”
Reducing to 1700 to 2200 nuclear warheads over the next
10 years from current levels of about 6000 nuclear weapons is consistent
with President Bush’s oft-stated goal for unilateral U.S. reductions without
a treaty – and it is consistent with the levels compelled by Russia’s economic
situation and sought by President Putin.
The good news is that the treaty text does not constrain
either side’s options on how to achieve these reductions and weapons can
be stored to assure they can be restored to respond to currently unexpected
future threats. The three-and-a-half-page treaty expires in 10 years
unless the sides decide to renew it – and either side can withdraw in 3months,
rather than 6 months as required by other treaties such as the ABM Treaty.
Ah yes… the ABM Treaty. It came into existence with the
first strategic arms limitation agreement, in 1972, and has been politically
linked to continuing negotiations on strategic arms ever since, even though
there has been no legal linkage.
As was the case for previous START Treaties, the new
treaty does not mention the ABM Treaty, which has banned for the past 30
years development, testing and deployment of any effective American defense
against ballistic missiles. But when those START Treaties were signed,
the Soviets, and later the Russians, made unilateral statements threatening
to withdraw from the START Treaty if the U.S. built effective defenses –
creating political linkage to the ABM Treaty.
And some of Russia’s generals have made similar noises
recently – it remains to be seen whether Mr. Putin will join that chorus.
Even if he does, that approach should be less effective in constraining U.S.
programs this time.
Such unilateral statements have reinforced a political
environment wherein some in the U.S. Congress – and the Senate in particular
– have sought and sometimes passed legislation compelling the Pentagon to
live within narrow constraints alleged to be the intent of the ambiguous
ABM Treaty. These political constraints precluded America’s engineers
from using the best technology to develop, test and deploy the most effective
defenses possible.
President Bush’s approach to negotiating with President
Putin gives hope that things will lead to a very different political environment
on Capitol Hill – and a very different program to build effective defenses.
In the past, the U.S. has negotiated reductions before
insisting on the need to defend the U.S. homeland against ballistic missiles.
This time, President Bush set the correct priority on December 13, 2001 by
first announcing his intention to withdraw from the ABM Treaty in six months
– and then negotiating the treaty he will sign next week.
Moreover, he acceded to President Putin’s demands for
a treaty on reducing nuclear weapons – laying waste to the arguments of the
arms control elite and those in Congress who claimed that abandoning the ABM
Treaty would somehow provoke Russia to build up its nuclear arms.
A key test of the President’s approach will be whether
Russia truly joins the U.S. to build an effective defense against ballistic
missiles. During his father’s administration, there was much progress
toward redirecting U.S. development activities to take advantage of Russian
technology and jointly to build a global ballistic missile defense system.
Russian President Boris Yeltsin actively joined in talks
to that end in 1992, but the Clinton Administration abandoned those talks
in early 1993, choosing instead to claim that the ABM Treaty was the “cornerstone
of strategic stability” – code words for the Cold War’s theology of Mutual
Assured Destruction, which sought to make a virtue out of a mutual hostage
arrangement between Americans and Russians.
Now we can try again – with the ABM Treaty out of the
way on June 13, 2002 – to achieve “enhanced mutual security,” as the President
said last Monday.
A sign of progress toward this happy outcome will be
if President Putin makes no claims about the ABM Treaty as he signs the new
reductions treaty next week. Then we’ll see what Congress does.
Stay tuned!!!
Issue Brief 65, February 19, 2002
From The Grass Roots: Robust Layered Defenses Now!!!
On February 14, The New Hampshire House of Representatives voted by a margin of 186 to 135 to approve the following resolution, sending a strong message to those in the U.S. Congress in favor of ending America’s vulnerability to a single ballistic missile, with a robust layered land-, sea-, and space-based defense:
Be It Resolved By The Legislature of the State of New Hampshire:
Representative Steve Avery, Chairman of the New Hampshire
House Committee on Veterans Affairs and Federal-State Relations, led the floor
debate. He observed to the press, “We are pleased to have the measure
passed. And we want to express our strong support for the President
to complete his homeland defense efforts – and missile defense is an important
part of that.” Most notably the resolution was jointly introduced by
Republican and Democrat legislators – and enjoyed bipartisan support.
The floor debate was accompanied by demonstrations reminiscent
of the peace demonstrations of the early 1980s in response to the “Peace Through
Strength” initiatives of Ronald Reagan. They continue into Vermont,
where many of the same players from the 1980s are speaking out against a
similar resolution being considered by the Vermont state legislature – still
in committee. Among the opposition are some members of the faculty of
Dartmouth, the Arms Control Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists,
the Institute of Defense and Disarmament Studies, the Council for a Livable
World, the American Friends Service Committee, and the Peace and Justice Center.
High Frontier strongly supports those in the Vermont
legislature who are trying to follow New Hampshire’s lead. Ambassador
Cooper’s testimony before New Hampshire and Vermont House Committees in support
of both initiatives is available on High Frontier’s webpage – www.highfrontier.org.
Messages to Washington from such grass roots initiatives
could be very helpful in the expected U.S. Congressional fight during the
next four months, leading up to President Bush’s announced withdrawal from
the ABM Treaty on June 13, 2002. Senate leaders, in particular, have
made clear their intention to seek legislation to block President Bush’s
efforts to end the ABM Treaty and to free America’s engineers to use the
best technology to build effective layered defenses against ballistic missiles.
Inform yourselves and join the fight!!!
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is dead at
last, thanks to the announcement that the United States was exercising its
right under Article 15 to withdraw. The treaty should have ended with the
1991 passing of the other signatory, or Soviet Union. But it survived for
a decade more because of political constraints mostly generated by arms-control
devotees still locked into Cold War thinking.
Now these people are wringing their hands, fearing
that the international community will respond by building up their nuclear
weapons. And they are raising a number of false claims against the withdrawal.
For instance, they argue that no one dares attack
us because we would destroy them in response. This argument is ironic after
Sept. 11, when terrorists went to their deaths to kill Americans. They also
argue that they wouldn’t use ballistic missiles, as Sept. 11 demonstrates.
However, does anyone think Osama bin Laden would hesitate to destroy New York
with a ballistic missile?
Some mistakenly believe that no one can attack
us with ballistic missiles today. Regrettably, the threat is advancing rapidly.
In 1998, a bipartisan commission led by then-citizen, now defense secretary,
Donald Rumsfeld concluded that rogue states could build missiles within five
years.
Many also believe that it is premature to withdraw
from the treaty since we don’t know whether defenses will work. Actually,
experiments 15 years ago proved we could “hit a bullet with a bullet.” President
Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative greatly advanced that technology.
But Pentagon leaders have said that they need no
testing beyond the terms of the treaty, Bush’s detractor’s argue. This, however,
is not so. Lawyers have constrained the testing that engineers have wanted
to do since the 1980s. Designing tests around the treaty has led to delay
and additional cost.
Others argue that we cannot afford these programs.
The opposite is true. The treaty has forced development of the more expensive
ground-based options. Sea-based defenses could be built for less because
they would take advantage of more than $50 billion already invested in the
aegis cruisers that today defend our fleet against aircraft. With onboard
defensive interceptors, these ships could shoot down ballistic missiles.
Another less expensive option would use unpiloted
air vehicles, like the Predator now flying in Afghanistan, to launch rockets
to intercept attacking missiles.
Space-based interceptors would be the most cost-effective
global defense. They were the first defense system concept to enter the Pentagon’s
formal acquisition process in 1991. Had that program been permitted to continue
without ABM Treaty inhibitions, we now could have a global defense to protect
the entire world community for less than the cost of one ground-based site
in Alaska.
We must press ahead with these system concepts
because the threat is urgent. And all can be pursued for under 3 percent
of the defense budget and less than ½ percent of the federal budget.
The concerns that abandoning the treaty will cause
the Russians and Chinese to build up their nuclear weapons and draw the ire
of our friends and allies are overstated. Russia will cooperate with us. In
1992, Russian President Boris Yeltsin proposed that we take advantage of
Russian technology and together build defenses for the world community. Withdrawal
from the treaty will not harm the excellent relationship President Bush has
with Russian President Putin nor lead to any reversal of Russia’s interest
in reducing their offensive nuclear weapons.
China is a different matter, but China was already
building more ballistic missiles with multiple warheads, and they will probably
continue. If anything, they may reduce their investments in such systems if
we deploy effective defenses.
As for other friends and allies, the American taxpayer
has already footed the bill for building Israeli defenses, for which they
are grateful. We also have cooperative programs with the Japanese, who became
concerned after the 1998 North Korean launch of a Taepo Dong missile over
their territory. Other nations also have expressed an interest in joint programs,
and our NATO friends for years have been considering how they might extend
that defensive alliance to ballistic missile defense.
Many parties can play a role in a joint effort.
Various nations can provide bases for interceptors, radar or other components.
We can work together on command and control, just as NATO manages its joint
air defense. All can benefit from a joint defense against ballistic missiles.
Last Friday, the Navy successfully tested its Sea-Based
Midcourse Missile Defense interceptor by shooting down a rocket fired from
the island of Kauai. An Aegis Cruiser, the USS Lake Erie, acquired
and tracked the target rocket from its location off the coast of Hawaii, computed
an intercept solution, and launched its test interceptor – which destroyed
the target by directly hitting it above the Earth’s atmosphere. This
successful test is a major step forward for the Navy’s efforts to improve
its existing Aegis-based air defense system to protect our overseas troops,
friends, and allies against missile attack. Further-more, President
Bush announced the U. S. will withdraw from the ABM Treaty on June 13; so
this sea-based system also can be made capable of defending the American homeland
– for a relatively small investment.
But it isn’t clear the Bush Pentagon will rapidly press
ahead with this important program, which could exploit existing Aegis cruisers
already operating around the world – so strong is the pent-up institutional
resistance to sea-based defenses.
We have known for years that, for a small percentage of the $60 billion
the U.S. taxpayer has invested in Aegis system, we can rapidly begin operating
a sea-based defense and improving it with block changes as new technology
is tested and proven. Working with the Chief of Naval Operations and
Secretary of Navy level, I began such a program while serving as Director
of the Strategic Defense Initiative under the first President Bush – with
then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney’s blessing, the Pentagon fully budgeted
to build and begin operations of such a capability years ago.
The Clinton Administration scuttled that program –
no doubt because of its higher priority for the ABM Treaty than building
effective defenses. They “dumbed down” the anemically funded sea-based
defense programs they did reluctantly continue – under persistent pressure
from Congress. The Clinton Administration resisted spending the
money Congress added year after year; instead they conducted study after
study of the merits of sea-based defenses.
Every study – over a dozen by inside and outside experts
– was positive. But the Clinton Administration delayed and dissembled
– and refused to provide even Congressionally mandated study results to the
Congress.
There was great hope this would all change with the
arrival of President George W. Bush and his oft-stated commitment to missile
defenses – and to moving beyond the ABM Treaty, which bans even testing effective
sea-based defenses. So far, his administration has done little more
than continue to study the possibilities rather than to move out smartly
with a serious development program to build a sea-based defense capability
soon.
Indeed, the Pentagon took backward steps on December
14 by canceling, two-thirds of the way through development and on the eve
of intensive testing in February, the Navy Area Missile Defense program,
in which the taxpayers had invested over $2 billion. In overruling
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who had formally echoed the views of the
Chief of Naval Operations and Commandant of the Marines in strongly endorsing
this program, Pentagon officials pointed to cost growth and schedule delays
as justifying cancellation of the Navy’s top priority missile defense program.
Such problems are not to be taken lightly, of course
– but they are hardly unusual for successful Pentagon acquisition programs,
and Pentagon authorities were very unwise to kill this program at a cost
of several hundred million dollars of termination fees – perhaps more than
the costs of the tests to see if the system would perform as designed.
Guess what? After killing Navy Area, the Pentagon
is “studying” how to reorganize the development of sea-based defenses – to
meet long-established requirements for such defenses, including of our
coastal sea and airports of entry, providing “assured access to troubled regions
allowing a smooth flow of follow-on troops and air forces,” as JCS Chairman
Air Force General Richard B. Meyers has articulated. What’s wrong with
all the past studies?
According to press accounts last summer, past Navy
studies concluded that relatively inexpensive options can be exercised in
a staged way to begin defending the United States homeland and within a year: