Blog

 
On a recent trip to Thailand, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton re-affirmed U.S. support for helping our allies defend themselves against Iran. She said we will offer a “defense umbrella” to those facing threats from the rogue state. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Ilan Berman And Clifford D. May want to know whether the U.S. is even capable of providing that kind of protection. An excerpt:

“The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and associated delivery systems since the collapse of the Soviet Union means that any “defense umbrella” will require the deployment of missile defense technologies capable of neutralizing a potential salvo of nuclear-tipped missiles—whether from Iran or another rogue such as North Korea.

“Yet America’s missile-defense efforts are being scaled back. Congress is contemplating a $1.4 billion reduction to the Pentagon’s budget for antimissile capabilities.”

Are President Barack Obama and his secretary of state on the same page? As the authors note, George Bush’s missile defense efforts didn’t go far enough, yet Obama wants to scale back even more. Cuts from the missile defense budget would eliminate programs and reduce others. As we’ve mentioned, the Multiple Kill Vehicle program would be eliminated, and interceptors in Alaska and California would be reduced to 30, down from 44.

The authors note that both sides of the political aisle need to be in agreement when it comes to missile defense. Enemies rightfully see these disagreements and Obama’s proposed cuts as signs of discord and weakness.

“U.S. missile-defense policy should be designed to elicit the opposite response,” write Berman and May. “Our enemies and competitors should be forced to conclude that energy and funds spent developing nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them will be wasted because Americans have the know-how and hardware to prevent them from reaching their intended targets.”

The U.S. should be giving off strong and determined vibes, sending a signal to Iran that its nuclear ambitions and threats are futile.

 
According to a new report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the administration’s shift from emphasizing strategic ballistic missile interception systems to battlefield missile defense would save money but hamper our ability to protect against missile attacks. (Source)

The Obama administration proposes to cut $1.4 billion from the missile defense budget. The report’s author notes the administration’s proposal to reduce ground-based interceptors from 44 to 30 with no plans to replace or replenish the program. The budget for the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system would be reduced by 35 percent, and the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense program would see cuts for the next fiscal year.

The Airborne Laser (ABL) program, which had its first successful in-flight test this week, would see a $214 million decrease if the budget is passed. Perhaps the success of the ABL will prompt the president to commission another ABL aircraft.

The administration proposes to cancel the Multiple Kill Vehicle and Kinetic Energy Interceptor programs.

See the Center’s 50-page report (PDF) for analyses of how these budget cuts affect our national defense.

 
The Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance (MDAA) released a legislative alert on the defense budget. Under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2010, missile defense will lose $1.2 billion in funding. Missile interceptors in Alaska and California would be reduced from 44 to 30.

According to the alert, President Barack Obama intends to shift away from national missile defense to theater missile defense. Earlier this month, we noted that the Obama administration planned to shift funds away from weapons and research for future conflicts and focus on weapons needed for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The NDAA passed the House and Senate in committee, and lawmakers are introducing amendments to restore funding.

The MDAA notes that missile defense cuts would cancel the Multiple Kill Vehicle, Kinetic Energy Interceptor, and Airborne Laser. Visit the MDAA site for more information.

 
The Heritage Foundation’s Kim Holmes wrote an article for the Washington Times in which he asks the question, “Why cut missile defense now?”

About the proposed $1.4 billion cut in the missile defense budget, Holmes writes:

“It’s being done in the name of ‘restructuring’ the missile-defense program. The administration is holding on to defenses against short-range missiles, while scaling back programs against long-range missiles – the kind North Korea and Iran recently tested.

“This makes no sense. Defenses against short-range missiles are all very fine, but they are not the missiles that most threaten the United States. That would be North Korea’s Taepodong-2 missiles tested April 5, which when fully deployed, could reach Alaska and California.

“One target of the cuts is the Airborne Laser (ABL), an energy-directed weapon placed on a modified Boeing 747-400. The ABL is intended to knock down a long-range missile shortly after it leaves the launchpad – the best time for an intercept because its warheads have not yet been deployed in space.”

Holmes also wonders why the Pentagon decided to turn its back on the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV), which would destroy missiles in space. Along with the Space Tracking and Surveillance System sensor program, the MKV could effectively neutralize our enemies’ abilities to succeed in causing mass destruction.

Holmes puts the missile defense cut in perspective:

“It would be understandable if we couldn’t afford missile defenses,” he writes. “But that is clearly not the case. The $1.4 billion cut from the missile defense budget is 0.04 percent of the overall proposed federal budget. It’s like a rounding error in an Obama bailout…The roughly $10 billion we spend annually on all of missile defense amounts to only 13 percent of what local, state and federal government agencies pay for ‘first responders.’”

President Barack Obama would do well to know that appeasement and “dialogue” didn’t stop North Korea from launching a rocket, and nothing short of comprehensive missile defense will protect the U.S. and its allies from rogue nations.

The Heritage Foundation blog also comments on Holmes’s op-ed.

 
With rogue states like Iran and North Korea building up missile defense systems and Russia trying to assert dominance, the last thing the U.S. needs to do is cut the missile defense budget. But that’s exactly what’s happening. The Obama administration is seeking to cut $2 billion in missile defense funding from the FY 2010 budget. (Source)

The Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance naturally expressed concerns about the proposed cuts. Boeing’s modified 747, which would stop ballistic missiles shortly after launch, was in “very serious jeopardy of being taken out,” according to Riki Ellison, head of the alliance.

Lockheed Martin’s Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) and Northrop Grumman’s and Raytheon’s Space-Based Surveillance and Tracking System might see reduced funding as well. The MKV is designed to stop complex ballistic threats during the midcourse phase of flight with multiple kill vehicles launched from a single interceptor.

One of the “tough choices” of the bad economy is possible cuts to missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic. President Obama appears to be hedging on the agreements as it is. Reducing the budget would be the perfect excuse to renege on the plans. Obama may use the planned shields as a sort of bargaining chip in our country’s negotiations with Russia. If Russia helps stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, the story goes, the U.S. will back off building those bases in Central Europe.

The question is, can Russia be trusted? Either way, the new administration is ready, willing, and able to undercut U.S. plans to build a strong and comprehensive missile defense strategy, with the economy serving as a convenient excuse.