Blog

>> This weekend the New York Times published a story that highlighted opposing reactions to North Korea’s recent rocket launch. While some considered the launch a failure because the rocket didn’t reach its target, others see the bigger picture: North Korea’s willingness to continue developing and testing its ballistic missile capability.

Missile defense naysayer Philip E. Coyle III said, “The advocates [of missile defense] want to scare people, so they hype the threat.”

Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance president Riki Ellison said, “North Korea has successfully tested a long-range ballistic missile. This success coupled with the North Korean nuclear weapons makes North Korea a nuclear threat.” (NYT)

>> The Missile Defense Agency announced that the Airborne Laser (ABL) prototype aircraft achieved flight certification last week as it returned to Edwards Air Force Base. Called a critical milestone, the ABL integrated aboard a 747 aircraft will provide “speed of light capability” against missiles in the boost phase and other missions. (MDA)

>> RIA Novosti reports that Turkey, a member of NATO, wants to buy S-400 Triumf air defense systems from Russia. An unnamed source implied such a sale would be complicated. NATO and Russia don’t see eye-to-eye on U.S. plans to build missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic.

“We have explained to Turkish officials that S-400 is not just a simple air defense system but an element of strategic missile defenses, which can be placed in one country but protect the airspace over a number of neighboring countries,” he said. (RIA Novosti)

>> Israel has agreed to supply India with missile defense technology in an effort to boost strategic ties between the two countries. Both countries face missile threats from Muslim countries. India will receive Barak ground-to-air missiles from Israel. (ISN)

>> National Review’s Kathryn Lopez posts on The Corner blog a letter from a group of bipartisan U.S. senators who oppose missile defense cuts. Senators Joe Lieberman, Jon Kyl, Mark Begich, Lisa Murkowski, Jeff Sessions, and Jim Inhofe sent the letter to President Barack Obama. An excerpt:

“We write to urge you not to allow deep cuts in U.S. missile defense programs that are critically important to protecting our homeland and our allies against the growing threat of ballistic missiles.

“Secretary of Defense Robert Gates today announced plans to cancel or reduce such major programs as the Airborne Laser, Multiple Kill Vehicle, and the installation of additional Ground-Based Interceptor missiles in Alaska, and cut the MDA’s budget for Fiscal Year 2010 by $1.4 billion. Although we applaud Secretary Gates’ commitment to such capabilities THAAD and SM-3, these proposals would amount to almost a fifteen percent cut in the MDA budget and a major reduction in our missile defense portfolio—actions that we fear could undermine our emerging missile defense capabilities to protect the United States against a growing threat.

“As you know, the threat from ballistic missiles is significant and on the rise.”

Read the rest at NRO.

>> Today Israel successfully test-fired its Arrow II interceptor missile, a system that will help the country defend against attacks from rogue states like Iran and Syria.

An unnamed source said, “The arrow’s interception altitude has been enhanced. Of course, the higher you go, the further out you can reach as well. Our doctrine is to intercept enemy missiles as far away from Israeli skies as possible. That gives you time for another try if you miss.” (Reuters)

>> According to a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted before North Korea’s rocket launch, 57 percent of Americans said they support using military force to neutralize North Korea’s capability to launch missiles. Sixty-six percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats said they support military involvement if North Korea moved forward with its military test. (FOXNews.com)

>> Today the U.S. issued sanctions against six Iranian companies and a Chinese man named Li Fangwei, also known as Karl Lee, for allegedly supporting Iran’s rogue ballistic missile and nuclear programs. U.S. Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey said, “Today we are acting under our Security Council and other international obligations to prevent these entities from abusing the financial system to pursue centrifuge and missile technology for Iran.” (AFP)

(Photo credit: Boeing)

 
The Heritage Foundation‘s Kim R. Holmes, Vice President for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, has a post up at National Review Online’s The Corner blog. He writes about the surprisingly short span of time it would take for our enemies to wipe out an American city with nuclear weapons: 33 minutes.

“Amazingly, some pundits say the threat of such attacks is farfetched, and our military can repel them anyway,” Holmes writes. “They are wrong. Though our capabilities have come a long way in eight years, they are not enough to protect all of America. It is morally wrong to suggest that the government should settle for protecting only some of us.”

As more countries acquire ballistic missiles, especially rogue countries like Iran and North Korea, the situation becomes even more dire. Holmes points out that most Americans understand the danger. Unfortunately, Barack Obama was been lukewarm on this issue. There seems to be no sense of urgency to build missile shields and to protect the homeland and our allies.

See our post from earlier this week, “33 Minutes on YouTube,” to view a two-minute trailer for a high-definition documentary titled, “33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age,” produced by the Heritage Foundation. The film will explain the history of missile defense, the present global nuclear threat, and what the U.S. must do to protect itself and the world.

As Holmes notes, we’ve tried and failed to negotiate away the missile threat. There’s a good reason Iran and North Korea are called “rogue” nations.

 
UPI has published the first of a multipart series of commentaries on nuclear warhead-equipped ballistic missiles. Although the number of such missiles has decreased since the Cold War, the number of countries that have the weapons has increased. At least nine countries have ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads.

As the writer notes, traditional methods of deterrence may not work. In a FOX News op-ed, the Heritage Foundation‘s James Carafano echoed these sentiments. The old Cold War way of thinking about missile defense is ineffective against rogue nations like North Korea. “For one thing, nascent nuclear nations…may not understand the ‘rules’ of Cold War-style deterrence and could well blunder into nuclear conflict. For another, rogue states and non-state actors may not be deterred by the U.S. nuclear arsenal.”

With only two countries in the nuclear weapons game during the Cold War, both could effectively promote deterrence because neither wanted nuclear annihilation. Now that nine other countries have joined the game, the players will be harder to control.

The U.S. may be able to control who possesses and launches ballistic missiles among smaller countries like North Korea and Iran, especially if those missiles can be intercepted in the early launch stage. The ideal time to intercept a ballistic missile is during the boost phase. That’s why the Missile Defense Agency is funding programs that focus on intercepting missiles as they ascend.

 
SPX reports that U.S. defense contractor Raytheon has been awarded a $54 million to develop a Multiple Kill Vehicle, known as MKV-R. Last summer we blogged about the Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA) announcement that it completed testing a key propulsion system component for its MKV-L payload.

The MKV-R is designed to stop complex ballistic threats during the midcourse phase of flight with multiple kill vehicles launched from a single interceptor, according to SPX.

Raytheon Missile System’s Frank Wyatt said his “is the only company that has designed, developed and deployed exoatmospheric kill vehicles for the Ballistic Missile Defense System…This contract award establishes Raytheon as the prime contractor for the development of the MKV-R and as the systems integrator for the MKV-R payload.”

In other MDA news, the agency reported that its Kinetic Energy Interceptor Team successfully performed a first stage rocket motor test. Download the press release (PDF) for more information.

 
On September 17, Japan test-fired a Patriot Advanced Capability – 3 (PAC-3) missile at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, the first time a foreign PAC-3 was fired at the range. Retired U.S. army lieutenant and Lockheed vice president of air and missile and defense Dennis Calvin said, “The Japanese were well trained. The missile shot came off without any hitches and was extremely successful. We used a surrogate tactical ballistic missile for the test.” (Defense News)

Are there Russian spies in the Czech Republic? According to Czech counterintelligence, there are, and they’re trying to stir up dissention over that country’s planned missile defense radar base. Spies allegedly contacted organizations, politicians, and the media to spread propaganda. (AP)

Good news about Congress, at last. Democrats, who’d been blocking funding for missile defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, “likely” will concede to allow construction on the base in Poland, with “sharply” reduced funding. According to the AP, the bill would allow full funding for the base in the Czech Republic. (AP)

 
President Ronald Reagan got the ball rolling on the development of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) with his Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983. Twenty-five years after he proposed that the U.S. focus on strategic defense rather than offense, the number of countries with ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons has increased.

Thirty-six years ago (1972), nine countries had ballistic missile capability, including China, Germany, Russia, and the US. In 2007, over 20 countries had this capability, including India, Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey.

In 1972, only six countries could be described as nuclear states: China, France, Israel, Russia, the UK, and the US. In 2007, three countries were added to the list: India, North Korea, Pakistan.

Some of these countries are allies; others are not. It’s up the MDA to develop missile defense technology and to train a workforce committed to protecting us from foreign enemies.

1. The Missile Age 1972 (PDF)

2. The New Missile Age 2007 (PDF)

3. Nuclear States in the Missile Age 1972 (PDF)

4. Nuclear States in the New Missile Age 2007 (PDF)

 
Israel is set to receive much-needed help from the U.S. to develop its missile defense system so that country can protect itself against possible threats in the region.
 
We’ve blogged about the U.S. and Israel working together to develop Arrow-3, an advanced ballistic missile defense system. The new generation system will be designed to destroy multiple-warhead missiles and decoys. Israel wants to prepare to defend itself in case of attacks from countries like North Korea , Iran, and Syria. According to Jane’s Information Group, U.S. aid will include $750 million until the ballistic missile defense system is operational.
 
Syria and Iran
 
We noted that despite rumors Syria may acquire a missile defense system from Russia, Israel is still interested in negotiating peace with the Muslim country. Yesterday, however, Syria’s president said that if Israel attacks Iran , it “would have catastrophic consequences for the entire world.”
 
Israel may preemptively strike Iran’s nuclear facilities for fear the country will obtain an atomic weapon. (The U.S. and Israel believe Iran wants to build atomic bombs.) According to the AFP, Iran would retaliate by deploying Shahab-3 missiles, long-range weapons capable of reaching Israel. Meanwhile, Iran is denying that it bought missiles from Russia. Israel reported that Iran could have these advanced weapons by the end of the year. 

Unfortunately, “peace in the Middle East ” is a far-off dream.

(Sources: Jane’s Information Group, AFP, and Reuters)

Over the weekend Heritage’s Jim Carafano attended a conference on missile defense challenges in the 21st century, which was sponsored by the Claremont Institute. One question was repeatedly asked, “Who would dare fire a ballistic missile at the United States?”

One surprising answer that came up again and again: Iran. Now, we all know that Iran has ballistic missiles and is trying to develop a nuclear weapon, but its missiles do not have the range to reach to the United States. In 1998, however, Iran test-fired a missile off a platform in the Caspian Sea — odd, considering Iranian missiles can reach likely targets in the Middle East from land-based sites. Iran has also held several missile tests, detonating the missiles at the apogee (that’s the highest point) of the missile’s flight path — again odd, given that missile tests are usually designed to see if missiles can fly all the way to their targets.

These strange experiments, however, could mean something, according to the scientists and scholars at the conference. If a missile were hid on an unassuming commercial cargo ship, it could sail near U.S. territory without ever being inspected by anyone. A short-range missile could be fired off a ship, and if Iran detonated a nuclear weapon high over the United States, it would produce an EMP-effect, a blast of electromagnetic waves that would short-circuit almost every electrical component on the ground below from the electric grid that powers the nation to the pumps that deliver water to our homes to electronic circuits that allow you to start car. This kind of attack would turn America into an 18th century barter economy in minutes. Is that what Iranian leaders meant when they said they could envision a world without America? We just don’t know.

With troubling developments like this, it is amazing that Americans are sanguine about the lack of adequate progress in building comprehensive missile defenses. Ironically, polls show again and again that most Americans want to be protected from ballistic missile threats. On the other hand, Congress has little interest in making the issue a priority.

But because lawmakers in Washington know Americans care about the issue, they pretend to take the issue seriously while trying to do as little as possible. Many in Congress would prefer to rely on negotiating or explaining threats away. While the Constitution clearly states “providing for the common defense” is Washington’s first duty, members of Congress think they know better.