Blog

Former Virginia governor George Allen wrote a book titled, What Washington Can Learn from the World of Sports, in which he analogizes good defense in sports with good defense in national security.  The Heritage Foundation‘s James Carafano wrote about the book in his Washington Examiner column. An excerpt:

“In his book, Allen promotes a strategy of ‘peace through strength.’ Not surprisingly, his discussion starts not with offensive weaponry, but with missile defense. ‘Effective missile defense systems are not just interesting high-tech options for defending our nation, they are necessities,’ he writes.

“An enemy able to hit the American homeland with a nuclear-tipped missile has a get-out-of-jail-free card. No matter how great or small their beef with the United States, enemies can raise the threat of a mushroom cloud exchange. No American president wants to take that bet. Once armed with nuclear weapons, enemies increasingly ignore red lines, red flags and all other warnings. The likelihood of competition — and conflict — only grows.

“Allen’s book is extremely timely. It stands in sharp contrast to the White House’s recently released National Security Strategy, which looks to assure peace through any number of means … except strength. To “defend” America, the president prescribes a potion consisting of greater reliance on international institutions, more diplomacy (i.e., substituting soft power for hard power), and a more humble and restrained U.S. presence in the world.

“The centerpiece of the White House strategy is the elimination of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, its game plan focuses on reducing the U.S. arsenal and gutting our long-range missile defense programs, while encouraging our potential adversaries to do the same.

“The problem is, other teams aren’t interested in following Obama’s playbook. Russia is building up and modernizing its nuclear arsenal. China might well add weapons in response to Russia.”

In March, the Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano and Jena McNeill of the Heritage Foundation wrote an article about electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and recommended that Congress establish March 23 as Electromagnetic Pulse Recognition Day, given the catastrophic effects of a nuclear weapon explosion in our atmosphere. This explosion would interact with the planet’s magnetic fields, creating a pulse, which in turn would cause widespread damage, devastate the economy, and result in millions of deaths.

Subsequently, TIME magazine published a story about EMP and quoted Carafano’s and McNeill’s article.

Today we found out that the National Geographic channel will air a show about EMP titled, “Electronic Armageddon,” which premieres on June 15 at 10 p.m. EDT. See the four-minute video below:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) clashed head on with Obama administration officials in the first hearing over New START, a proposed nuclear arms control treaty that the White House has submitted to the Senate for ratification yesterday. DeMint hammered home the point that the treaty would limit how future presidents could pursue missile defenses.

Secretary Gates brushed off the concerns as did the Committee Chair John Kerry dismissing the notion that the White House has come up with anything but the perfect missile defense plan. But others argue the White House plan is inadequate, furthermore in the future conditions and threats may change—why should the United States have to go back to Russia to get permission to defend itself. Senator Kerry has no problem seeking a permission slip from the Russians. As clashed head on with Obama administration officials as reported in The New York Times reported, Senator DeMint thinks it is a terrible idea: With his response, Senator Kerry proved why Americans have a hard time fully trusting the left to put American interests first in foreign affairs.”

In fact, the administration knows the proposed treaty limits future missile defense program. That’s it why it rushed to rewrite the White House fact sheet which first claimed the treaty put no limits on missile defense. The rewrite suggests that treaty won’t limit Obama’s plans. Even that statement is cold comfort. Obama’s plan does not look like it will be adequate to deal with an Iranian threat, let alone the likes of the Russian nuclear force. Under the government’s own estimate Iran could have a long-range missile, three years before it gets a missile defense umbrella up and running in Europe.
———————————

Cross-posted at The Foundry.

The Heritage Foundation‘s James Carafano asks whether President Barack Obama’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) meets his requirement by law to release it every four years and to base it on the national security strategy. An excerpt:

“The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 requires that the strategy be submitted to Congress annually. Obama failed to do that. According to the Congressional Research Service, the strategy was due in 2009, ’150 days after the Inauguration.’

“No strategy is a real problem. By letting the QDR cart roll in front of the strategy horse, Obama is depriving both the Congress and the American people of a full and clear picture of what he is up to.

“The contents of the QDR are of even greater concern. By law, the report must address 15 requirements. The report falls short on most of them.

“For example, the QDR is supposed to lay out the ‘force structure best suited to implement that strategy at a low to moderate level of risk.’ Among other decisions, the QDR cut the number of troops specifically outfitted and assigned to respond to weapons of mass destruction attacks on the homeland by 3,000 — almost 20 percent.”

Read the full article at the Washington Examiner.

From James Carafano’s latest Washington Examiner column:

President Obama wants a world without nuclear weapons. So did President Reagan. The similarities end there.

How we get to a nuke-free world matters. To mitigate the threat of nuclear war, treaty negotiators must understand what they are up against. That includes understanding how the other parties plan to use nukes, both as military assets and as foreign policy tools.

Reagan knew that. But it’s not clear that Obama’s negotiators appreciate Moscow’s evident intent to keep using its potent nuclear threat to advance its foreign policy interests.

Like Reagan, Obama believes America must lead the way to nuclear disarmament. Unlike Reagan, he believes this requires an assertion of “moral” leadership, to be demonstrated simply by reducing our nuclear stockpile and refusing to modernize the U.S. arsenal. It’s a false premise.

In the post-Cold War era, U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles have atrophied, yet the nuclear threat has increased. Today, there are many more nuclear-armed states, and some are far less stable — and far more irresponsible — than the U.S.S.R.

Reagan recognized that the ultimate goal of arms negotiations is to make the world safer, more stable and more free. To eliminate the need for large nuclear arsenals, he went about eliminating the dependence — both ours and others’ — on massive nuclear attack as the guarantor of security.

———————————————–

Read the full article.

The Heritage Foundation‘s James Carafano recently appeared on FOX News to talk about START renewal:

Writing at Family Security Matters, the Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano says President Barack Obama has failed the American people when it comes to dealing with our interests aboard.

“[T]he administration still holds out it can ‘do business’ with Russia, even as the Russians are keeping to their demands for negotiating a strategic arms reduction treaty. Meanwhile, Moscow continues to hold out a promise of a deal on one hand and slaps the White House with the other. Although earlier this week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed an agreement would be reached before the end of the month, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin [pictured] greeted State Department Secretary Clinton with an announcement that the nuclear plant Russia is helping Iran build in Bushehr will begin operations this summer. In short, the Russians keep playing the U.S. for a fool, but the White House continues not to notice.”

Indeed, Obama is hopelessly naïve about Russia. Striving to “reset” relations with the former Soviet Union in an effort to solidify his non-Bush credentials, Obama is playing right into Russia’s hands. Negotiating away our security in return for Russia’s “cooperation” is foolhardy at best and deadly at worst.

Obama further demonstrates his “tin ear” to what the world has to say about dealing with threats by offering to “dialogue” with Iran, a rogue state that ignores sanctions and defiantly continues to build its nuclear program.

“It is just incredible to believe that the White House thinks it can ‘do business’ with an Iranian government that is beyond the pale, Carafano writes. “After starting the week by ignoring and insulting allies and ending it by ignoring the insults of America’s enemies, the White House has demonstrated pretty clearly that it is much more interested in promoting its political agenda at home than dealing with nation’s interests abroad.”

From James Carafano and Jena McNeill at Heritage.org:

On March 23, 1983, President Ronald Reagan gave a famous speech where he outlined his plans for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), aimed at protecting America from a nuclear missile attack using land- and sea-based missile defense systems. On the anniversary of this famous oratory, however, America faces another threat, one that requires Congress’s immediate attention: an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack.

An EMP attack can begin with the explosion of a nuclear weapon high in the atmosphere. This explosion interacts with the planet’s magnetic fields, creating a pulse, which in turn causes extensive damage to electronic systems. The EMP resulting from the blast would cause widespread damage, devastating the economy and resulting in the deaths of millions of Americans. Despite repeated warnings, Congress has taken virtually no action to prepare or protect against an EMP attack. In order to facilitate a national discussion regarding the EMP threat, Congress should establish March 23 as EMP Recognition Day.

Explored by America’s Adversaries

The likelihood of an EMP attack is disconcerting. Nearly 30 countries currently possess ballistic missile capabilities. Indeed, some have extensive knowledge of EMP and its effects. North Korea currently possesses a large arsenal of missiles and has been publicly testing its ballistic weapons. It has also been reported that Russian scientists have worked with North Korea on developing an EMP weapon. Countries and non-state actors are also exploring improvised or non-nuclear EMPs as a means of harnessing the destructive power of EMP without the need for missile capabilities. EMP has even been seen to occur naturally during a solar flare event (the last of which happened in the late 1800s).

Despite such concerns and repeated warnings from the congressionally mandated EMP Commission, the President’s budget does not place a great enough emphasis on missile defense, let alone the EMP threat. For instance, the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 budget requested $9.9 billion for missile defense, a $600 million decrease from FY 2009 (although a $900 million increase over FY 2010). Neither Congress nor the White House has looked extensively at hardening critical infrastructure against EMP or revising recovery plans or disaster planning scenarios to be reflective of this unique threat.

Time for an EMP Recognition Day

Given the increased likelihood that the U.S. could suffer an EMP attack in the near future, the time has come for Congress to recognize the danger that EMP poses and act to address this threat. If, just for one day, Congress simulated even a fraction of the impact such an attack would have, the scope of the danger would be clear. To do so, Congress should establish an EMP Recognition Day.

———————————————————–
Read the full web memo at Heritage.org.

Earlier this week, India tested its missile interceptor defense shield, designed to detect and destroy incoming ballistic missiles, but the test failed after radar lost track of the Prithvi 2 target missile (nuclear-capable). The interceptors weren’t launched. (Source: AFP)

India is developing weapons to protect itself from China and Pakistan. Last November, India test-fired a nuclear-capable, medium-range missile, a surface-to-surface Agni-II with a warhead range of 1,560 miles.

The Heritage Foundation’s Lisa Curtis and James Carafano wrote an article about directed-energy (laser) missile defense and cooperation between the U.S. and India in developing this technology. They noted the versatility of both low- and high-powered lasers, which can neutralize ballistic missile threats from a range of sources. In lieu of a full-scale retaliation, high-powered lasers can limit the scope of reprisals and contain the inevitable damage.

In 2008, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, comprised of 45 countries, lifted a three-decade ban on nuclear trading with India. The country first tested an atomic bomb in 1974 and again in 1988. India refused to sign non-proliferation agreements. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said the lifted ban “marks the end of India’s decades-long isolation from the nuclear mainstream.” He added, “It is a recognition of India’s impeccable non-proliferation credentials and its status as a state with advanced nuclear technology. It will give an impetus to India’s pursuit of environmentally sustainable economic growth.” Singh traveled to the U.S. and met with President George Bush.

On the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, Iran announced that it was now a nuclear state, capable of enriching higher levels of uranium. The rogue nation recently announced plans to build two more uranium enrichment sites, although it still claims the nuclear enrichment is for peaceful and scientific purposes.

Despite these developments, Iran stated in a document reportedly seen by news organizations that it’s ready to give up most of its stockpile of enriched uranium in a simultaneous exchange for fuel rods, and the exchange must take place on its territory. The U.N. has rejected this offer. Under the International Atomic Energy Agency’s terms, Iran would hand over the uranium and wait up to a year to receive fuel rods.

China and Russia both refuse to support further sanctions against Iran and claim to seek a diplomatic solution.

Meanwhile, Iran revealed plans to build 10 more nuclear enrichment plans, including the two previously mentioned. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proposed an energy embargo against Iran, with or without the U.N.’s approval.

How will the U.S. respond?

General David Petraeus said on “Meet the Press” that given our attempts to resolve differences with Iran diplomatically, the U.S. can “now to go on what is termed the pressure track. That’s the course on which we are embarked now.” He added that the administration will “send the kind of signal to Iran about the very serious concerns that the countries in the region and, indeed, the entire world have… about Iran’s activities in the nuclear program.”

Talking tough is one thing; following it up with action is another. What will this “pressure track” against Iran entail? The U.S. has already given Iran too wide a berth. While we’re trying to be diplomatic, Iran is enriching more uranium and building more nuclear sites.

Last week, the Heritage Foundation‘s James Carafano wrote at National Journal Online that we can speed up the process of freedom in Iran and contain nuclear proliferation by adopting “tough unilateral sanctions that hit the regime in the gut.” He added that the president needs to “spare no effort to shame Iran for its horrific human rights record, and…put the ‘third site’—the deployment of missile defense to Poland and the Czech Republic–back on the table. Take out every avenue Tehran has to threaten the West.”

(Sources: Reuters and AFP)