Blog

What’s the rush? asks Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center and a member of the congressionally mandated Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation, and Terrorism.

The U.S. has several nuclear arms containment options, so why rush to renew the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and allow Russia to dictate our missile defense policy?

Last month, the U.S. and Russia agreed to honor the spirit of the expired START, as they continue to negotiate a replacement Under the treaty, signed by Russia and the U.S. in 1991, both countries agreed to reduce nuclear warheads to roughly 6,000 and delivery vehicles to 1,600. Eleven years later, the Moscow Treaty, a follow-up to START, required warhead reductions to between 1,700 and 2,200.

Russia blamed our plans to continue developing a comprehensive missile defense system for the renewal delay. Sokolski, writing at National Review Online:

“The odds of START’s being ratified before November’s elections are hardly on the rise. The next round of negotiations begins today in Geneva…As it is, 41 Senators (all 40 Republicans plus one independent, Sen. Joe Lieberman) have warned President Obama that they are in no mood to approve START unless the White House supports a ‘significant’ nuclear-weapons-modernization program. The Defense Department’s Nuclear Posture Review, which details U.S. nuclear-weapons requirements for Congress every five years, was due in December. The administration is divided and has asked for two extensions; the review is now due in March and may be delayed again. Complicating matters even further, Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin is pushing to link missile defenses with offensive missiles in START, a potential killer provision for most pro-missile-defense Republicans.”

Senior officials in the administration are keen to “show progress” with Russia, in light of the mid-term elections. They may resubmit a Bush-era nuclear cooperation agreement between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, whose approval would “pretty much be a slam dunk.” But bringing this agreement before Congress has drawbacks, the most important of which, is that it is sure to force a debate over Russia’s cooperation with Iran in the nuclear weapons and rocket fields. This is unlikely to make passage of START easier in the Senate.

If Obama stops pushing START, and the U.S. diversifies “arms-control portfolio to address nuclear threats outside” Russia , whose deployed nuclear capabilities have diminished in the last 25 years, we might make some headway, without letting Russia call the shots.

Will Obama be proactive and take the initiative in containing Russia , or will appeasement policies prevail?

Representative Michael Turner, Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, wrote an op-ed for the Washington Times in which he makes the case for restoring funding for missile defense.

President Barack Obama cut missile defense spending. He dropped plans to deploy missile interceptors and radar to Poland and the Czech Republic, respectively. He reduced interceptors in Alaska. However, Obama is looking to expand missile defense capabilities in the Persian Gulf. Is the administration committed to beefing up defenses? Turner says that depends on the FY 2011 budget.

“The administrations policy cannot be funded if the missile defense budget remains flat,” he writes. “There are simply no more future programs like Airborne Laser, Kinetic Energy Interceptor and Multiple Kill Vehicle to take money from. Unless the Administration decides to further cut the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, take resources from critical programs such as testing and targets, or perhaps slow roll the implementation of its new policy, it cannot follow through on its stated commitments. A better solution is to restore top line funding for missile defense.”

In a move that seemed impulsive, it appeared the Obama administration scaled back Bush-era missile defense policy just for the sake of scaling back. For example, reducing interceptors in Alaska and California has left the U.S. vulnerable to long-range ballistic missiles and jeopardized the GMD system. Turner opposed these cuts and notes that the Pentagon reached similar conclusions about GMD a short time later.

“For the foreseeable future, GMD is the sole missile defense capability to protect the U.S. homeland from a rogue missile attack. So while the administrations most recent changes are welcome, they must be followed by continued support and funding in the budget.”

In the area of European and theater missile defense, the administration is only now realizing the need for more, not less, funding for these programs. For example, the Obama administration dropped previous plans in Central Europe to focus on increasing “cost-effective” sea- and land-based missile interceptors, but things aren’t as simple as they seemed.

“[A]s details have emerged,” Turner writes, “officials now acknowledge it will cost more, necessitate additional missile defense-capable ships, and require significant investments to develop new technical concepts. Full coverage of Europe and further protection of the United States comes later than previously planned and depends not only on new technologies but also on new host nation agreements. Securing some of these agreements may prove difficult as Russian officials are now grumbling about key aspects of the new approach such as the longer-range Standard Missile (SM)-3 Block II interceptor.”

The bottom line is that any one of the 28 countries that have ballistic missiles could hit the U.S., intentionally or not, and our missile defense program must be fully funded and flexible enough to deal with these threats. This week’s budget debates will reveal how committed Obama is to protecting the U.S.

The Obama Administration is finally doing something that is likely to lessen the threat posed by an aggressive Iran. It is following the lead of the George W. Bush Administration and looking to expand missile defense capabilities in the Persian Gulf.

This is according to a January 31, 2010 article in The New York Times. This step has many advantages for the United States and its friends and allies in the region regarding the Iranian threat. Reflective of a “protect and defend” strategy, it offers a defensive solution that serves to demonstrate the aggressive intent of Iran. The alternative is to give the Iranians a first strike option. It also does not require the global consensus that has been holding up the imposition of effective sanctions against Iran. This is not to say that this step should substitute for the diplomatic effort to impose sanctions on Iran, only augment it.

Third, it provides direct reassurance to U.S. friends and allies in the region and strengthens security ties there. Fourth, it will serve to lessen the pressure on the friends and allies there that do not have nuclear weapons to seek them in the future. Likewise, it will lessen the likelihood that the friends and allies that may have nuclear weapons will be put in a circumstance where they would compelled to use them. This last point is critical. Last fall, The Heritage Foundation ran a series of exercises based on an abstract of Middle East regional setting, where all the nation-equivalent players were presumed to have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. The exercises demonstrated that pursuing a defensive option resulted in fewer nuclear weapons. On the other hand, a nuclear conflict broke out when the player equivalent to the United States simultaneously relied on nuclear retaliatory options, pursued a policy of nuclear disarmament and chose not to pursue defensive options.

The Obama Administration, however, needs to close the circle on this productive step. The plan is to place the Patriot missile defense batteries in four Persian Gulf states and Standard Missile-3 missile defense interceptors on Navy ships in the Gulf. These steps will permit a defense against shorter-range missiles. The problem is that these current systems will not provide a defense to the United States or its friends against the longer-range missiles that Iran is seeking. This will permit Iran to focus on threatening the United States directly in order to drive a wedge between the United States and its friends and force the United States out of the region. It is an obvious window of vulnerability that the Obama Administration must close.

The Obama Administration can close this window of vulnerability by taking three steps. The first is to upgrade the sea-based missile defense system to make it capable of countering longer-range missiles. This sea-based system could also be used to protect the United States against an Iranian launch of a short-range missile off the coast that carries and electro-magnetic pulse nuclear warhead. Such an upgrade program should be put on the fast track. The second step is to restore the larger number of Ground-based Midcourse Defense interceptors that are designed to counter long-range missiles that were proposed by President Bush. The Bush Administration proposed placing 44 such interceptors in Alaska and California and ten in Poland. President Obama, last year, made the unwise decision to scale back the number to be place in Alaska and California to 30 and cancelled the agreement with Poland. The most powerful step the Obama Administration could take to close this window of vulnerability is to announce that it will revive a proposal of the Reagan Administration and the George H.W. Bush Administration to put missile defense interceptors in space. This is a missile defense program that will serve to put the Iranians on the defensive.

In October, sources reported that Poland was in the running to receive missile interceptors under President Barack Obama’s new missile defense plan. Last week, Poland’s defense minister announced that the U.S. plans to deploy Patriot missiles to Poland near the Russian border. In response, Russia intends to beef up its Baltic fleet. (Source)

Poland will install a base with several launch pads and manned by U.S. troops. Responding to Russia’s plans to shore up its Baltic fleet, a high-ranking source in the Polish Foreign Ministry downplayed the threat. “Let’s stay calm. Such strengthening, even if it becomes true, is no direct threat to Poland. The Russians have known about the Patriots for at least two years. So there is no reason to react to unofficial comments.”

Signed in November, the deal between the U.S. and Poland sends about 100 U.S. troops to Poland. Although the deal reflects both countries’ aim to protect the region from missile attacks, the plan is seen as offensive in nature from Russia’s perspective, rather than defensive.

Last year, President Barack Obama dropped Bush-era plans to deploy missile defense shields to Poland and the Czech Republic, the goal of which was to protect the region from Iranian attacks. Russia opposed the shields and threatened to install missiles near Poland’s border. Obama said he reneged on the agreements to focus on systems that would defend against Iran’s shorter-range missiles rather than long-range.

“In pulling the plug on the Bush missile-defense plan in Eastern Europe last month,” the Heritage Foundation‘s Peter Brookes wrote in the New York Post last year, “the White House came up with a new architecture based on a new evaluation of existing intelligence on the Iranian ballistic-missile threat…The Pentagon now insists Iran is moving faster on its short- and medium-range ballistic-missile programs than on its long-range ICBM effort, against which the Czech and Polish sites were aimed. (Of course, many experts think progress in one missile program supports another.)”

On January 21, the Committee on President Danger, a non-partisan organization that educates Americans about the Islamic threat, sent a letter to Congress and President Barack Obama to express concern about the president’s stance on missile defense. The committee believes he’s changed America’s missile defense program for the worst.

An excerpt:

“Since last spring, the White House has cut some $1.4 billion from programs within the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. In doing so, it has terminated a number of promising programs, among them the Airborne Laser, the Multiple Kill Vehicle and Kinetic Energy Interceptor. All these programs intercepted missiles in early flight and were an important hedge against future offensive missile threats. It has also limited the U.S.-based missile interceptors in Alaska and California to 30 instead of 44, which are currently our only defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles.

“It likewise ended a European ‘third site’ of ground-based defenses, including interceptors and radar, in Poland and the Czech Republic. The latter deployment of 10 missiles, contrary to many claims, was designed to shoot down longer range rockets from Iran, including those capable of reaching both central Europe and the continental United States, as a supplement to the U.S.- based systems. Our other theater missile defense systems, such as THAAD, Patriot and the Aegis-based Standard Missile, numbering close to 1,000 interceptors when current acquisition plans reach fruition, were acquired over the past decade and were scheduled to be simultaneously deployed. These systems have not been designed to shoot down longer range rockets, especially those of intercontinental range.”

Read the full letter at the committee’s web site.

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has released a video that shows the Airborne Laser (ABL) successfully firing at a target missile. View the video at the ABL web page.

“This test demonstrated the full functionality of the ABL system to successfully acquire, track, and engage a boosting target,” according to the MDA. “Test instrumentation aboard the MARTI collected data to evaluate ABL laser system performance. This test engagement was not intended to lethally destroy the missile.”

Last summer, defense contractor Boeing and the MDA announced the success of the ABL’s first in-flight test. The ABL tracked and hit a missile target launched from San Nicolas Island off the California coast. The ABL was mounted to Boeing’s modified 747, which took off from Edwards Air Force Base, and its infrared sensors found the target.

On Military.com’s news and national policy blog, Jamie McIntyre writes about Vladimir Putin’s recent comments on America’s missile defense. Among other things, Putin wants the U.S. to provide Russia detailed data on our missile defense plans and capabilities. The former Soviet Union aspires to modernize its offensive nuclear force in ways that would defeat our missile defense system.

“Skeptics of missile defense should take note of Russia’s paranoia about the U.S. missile defense in Europe…Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin believes something many in the U.S. scoff at, namely that the anti-​​missile system probably works, and Russia has nothing like it.”

Although Russia’s intercontinental ballistic missiles could take on our interceptors in Europe and Alaska, Russia seeks to impede our progress. Will President Barack Obama allow it?

“The Russian instance that the U.S. scrap its missile shield is a test for President Obama, who wants to extend an open hand to the Russians in his laudable goal of reducing nuclear stockpiles and getting help containing Iran,” McIntyre writes. “Reducing the number of nukes in the interest of both the United States and Russia, as are missile defenses by the way. If Putin could put his pride aside, and his country first, he could see that.”

The Heritage Foundation‘s James Carafano writes about Iran’s nuclear program in his latest Washington Examiner column. While Iran plans, Washington sleeps.

“Revelations in the last few weeks have been particularly troubling. The Times of London reported it had obtained an Iranian memo describing a four-year research program to produce a nuclear trigger for an atomic bomb. It is not yet clear the document is authentic. If it is, Washington has a big problem.

“It is also not clear when the memo was written. Some news reports peg the technical report at some time around 2007. That same year a National Intelligence Assessment, representing the collective wisdom of all the U.S. government intelligence agencies, declared Iran had stopped work on its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

“If the 2007 date holds up, it would indicate another huge problem: The CIA failed to detect almost five years of Iranian weapons research.”

What accounts for the CIA’s neglect?

Carafano reminds readers that Iran recently test-fired the long-range Sajjil-2 missile, capable of reaching Israel and parts of Southern Europe. While Iran is testing weapons and openly defying the U.N, President Barack Obama is cutting missile defense and trying to charm rogue states into compliance.

“At this rate,” writes Carafano, “America might celebrate its next Christmas under the shadow of a nuclear Iran.”

 
Yesterday, Iran test-launched its longest-range, solid fuel missile, capable of hitting Israel and parts of Europe, a day after the House of Representatives voted for sanctions against the rogue state.

Iran’s Sajjil-2 is the kind of weapon missile shields in Poland and the Czech Republic would have defended against. President Barack Obama dropped the Bush-era missile shield plans in Central Europe for one that deals with shorter-range missiles. The administration’s new missile defense policy doesn’t jibe with the Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA) goals. Stopping Iran’s long-range missiles will be the focus of the MDA’s simulated attack next month.

The Telegraph analyzes why Iran test-launched the Sajjil-2. Reporter Richard Spencer writes:

“[T]he most important response to Iran’s noise in recent weeks has been its mirror image: Israel’s silence…Since making his keynote speech to the Muslim world a week before the Iranian elections, President Barack Obama has urged negotiations, more diplomacy, and friendship with the Iranian people. That puts Mr Ahmadinejad in a dilemma. For the 30 years of the Republic, the US has been the enemy-in-chief, the Great Satan. Yet the more Mr Obama plays nice, the more that propaganda card fails to fulfil its purpose of uniting the Iranian people in a frenzy of support for the regime.”

Since Obama is going the diplomacy route, Iran needs an excuse to forge ahead with its defiant testing and nuclear development. Israel, which may pre-emptively strike Iran’s nuclear sites, is the “replacement bogeyman.”

“The Israelis have always said that military action is a possibility, but if Mr Ahmadinejad calls their bluff, have they got what it takes?”

The world may find out much sooner rather than later. Major General Amos Yadlin, Israel’s top intelligence chief, said Iran is close to developing a nuclear bomb, because it has enriched enough uranium.

In reaction to Iran’s missile test, White House spokesman Mike Hammer said, “Such actions will increase the seriousness and resolve of the international community to hold Iran accountable for its continued defiance of its international obligations on its nuclear program.” (Source)

Next month, the U.S. will simulate an Iranian attack to test its missile defense systems. The long-range “attack” missile would be fired from the Marshall Islands in the Pacific, and a missile fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base would intercept it.

The Missile Defense Agency’s Army Lieutenant General Patrick O’Reilly said the test will be different from a simulated North Korean attack, which would be slower and less direct.

“Previously, we have been testing the GMD system against a North Korean-type scenario…This next test … is more of a head-on shot like you would use defending against an Iranian shot into the United States. So that’s the first time that we’re now testing in a different scenario.”

In September, President Barack Obama dropped plans to build missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic, claiming he wanted to focus on proven and cost-effective technology that will aid in defending against Iran’s shorter-range missiles rather than long-range. The decision was seen as a move to placate Russia.

“The development of that (Iranian) long-range threat has been slower than what was originally estimated, and the pace of the medium-range missiles is dramatically higher,” O’Reilly said.

Next month’s simulated attack will cost about $150 million

(Source: Reuters)