Blog

Rebeccah Heinrichs, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a  missile defense expert, wrote a blog post at Big Peace about stopping ratification of the new START. An excerpt:

“Two weeks ago U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his Russian counterpart, Anatoly Serdyukov, cruised down the Potomac River on a U.S. Navy barge. Gates’ goal: find common ground on issues critically important to free nations such as preventing Iran from ‘nuking up’ and cooperating on building a defensive system to protect innocent people from terrorists’ missiles. They failed to find common ground and two days later it was reported that Russia, defying the U.S. and Israel, is selling sophisticated anti-ship missiles to Syria, the country famous for arming the terrorist group Hezbollah.These missiles will give Syria the ability to threaten ships in the Mediterranean Sea. Currently there are Israeli Navy ships in the Med and within the next several years the Obama administration plans to deploy U.S. Navy ships with ballistic missile defense capabilities to the Med to defend against longer range missiles.

“Russian officials opposed Bush Administration plans to deploy missile defense in Europe and now oppose Obama’s more modest, phased approach to deploy short and medium defenses in Europe over the next several years and eventually defenses for the U.S. by 2020.

“Gates’ goals of finding common ground with Serdyukov on squeezing Iran and defending against missiles are inseparable. Iran already has missiles capable of reaching Europe and the intelligence community says they’ll be able to hit the U.S. in five years. This means U.S. troops and allies in Europe are already at risk. If the mullahs in Iran successfully marry a nuclear weapon to those missiles, not only would Iran dramatically increase their ability to coerce the U.S. and our allies, they could also sell the technology to other dangerous countries or non-state actors. Missile defense cooperation between the U.S. and our allies is essential to global security.

“Just this month NATO’s Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said NATO needs to improve their very limited missile defense system. ‘If Iran eventually acquires a nuclear capability that will be very dangerous, and a direct threat to the allies. That is the reason why I am now proposing a new and effective NATO missile defense system.’

“Despite this shared threat, in February Russia’s ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin lambasted U.S. plans to deploy missile defense systems in Europe.”

Rebeccah Heinrichs, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and missile defense expert, wrote an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times on START ratification.

As is the case with other missile defense experts, Heinrichs has misgivings about the new START and the perception that the U.S. has compromised on the agreement, while Russia has not. She believes the full Senate should take its time on START ratification, and offers three key reasons:

“First, as the State Department revealed late last month, the United States believes Russia is not fully complying with its obligations under the previous START treaty. The public report does not go into detail about the recent violations. However, in the past, Russia has skirted inspections of particular warheads.

“Second, the Russians won’t need to cheat this time; President Obama’s diplomatic team made sure they won’t have to. It appears that the U.S. made the only concessions. The treaty caps the number of strategic nuclear warheads for both countries at 1,500, but the Russian news agency RIA Novosti acknowledges that loopholes allow Russia to keep 2,100. In addition, tactical warheads are exempt; Russia has 10 times more of them than the U.S., and they can reach our allies. Meanwhile, the treaty requires the U.S. to sacrifice ballistic missile launchers — the new limit is 700, and we have 850 — but the Russians already maintain fewer than 700, so they won’t have to give up a thing.

“Unlike the previous treaty, New START also incentivizes the U.S. and Russia to place multiple warheads on each missile. As arms control guru Keith Payne notes, the Russians are developing new missiles with multiple warheads capable of reaching the United States, while the Obama administration is heading in the opposite direction.”

Read the full article here.

Read Rebeccah Heinrich’s interview from our Ask the Experts series.

Several months ago, the Defense Intelligence Agency reported that in as little as five years, Iran may be capable of hitting the U.S. with an intercontinental ballistic missile, with North Korea’s help.

Defense experts James Woolsey, a former director of Central Intelligence and a board member at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and Rebeccah Heinrichs, an adjunct fellow at the same organization, discuss this threat in the Wall Street Journal:

“In March of that same year, Gen. Michael Maples, then-director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told a Senate panel that Iran’s successful satellite launch ‘shows progress in mastering the technology needed to produce ICBMs.’ Earlier this year Iran successfully orbited a second satellite with an ICBM-class ballistic missile.

“Gen. Maples is right. If you can launch a satellite into orbit you are very close to being able to hit a target half way around the world. That’s why the Soviet launch of Sputnik so shocked the U.S. intelligence community in 1957. When a country is the most active state sponsor of terrorism, and its leaders routinely endorse slogans like “Death to Israel” and “Death to America,” we should take it seriously when they pursue the capabilities to make their dreams a reality.

“A December 2009 missile launch proved Iran has already obtained the ability to reach Israel. Given President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s and other Iranian leaders’ millenarian fanaticism, it would be most imprudent to rely on nuclear deterrence alone to protect us. If Tehran were to achieve a nuclear missile capability, it could hold American cities hostage—unless, that is, the U.S. builds a robust and comprehensive ballistic missile defense.”

Philip Coyle, a missile defense skeptic and critic, was appointed by the president during a congressional recess to serve as associate director for the National Security and International Affairs in the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Among other things, Coyle believes U.S. missile defense is unnecessary and doubts that rogue nations like Iran seek to attack the U.S. and its allies.

“In my view, Iran is not so suicidal as to attack Europe or the United States with missiles,” Coyle said last year.” He doubts Iran or North Korea would launch a missile attack against us.

Rebeccah Heinrichs, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, wrote about Coyle in March at The Politico.

“President Barack Obama has nominated an anti-missile defense adviser who may soon receive congressional approval — and put Americans in danger…Russia and China, two countries with nuclear weapons and effective long range ballistic missiles, have helped Iran develop its missile program. Other countries that range from the hostile to the unreliable — for example, North Korea, Syria and Pakistan — also have ballistic missile programs.”

In his 2008 congressional hearing testimony, Coyle claimed that Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) isn’t effective enough to defend Europe and the U.S., but Heinrichs wrote that “a more complex version of GMD had completed a successful intercept test just months before. It is now the only system capable of defending the United States from long-range missiles.”

Despite threats from rogue states, the Obama administration has scaled back missile defense. In fact, some missile defense experts believe Obama compromised our nation’s security and our ability to defend ourselves in exchange for Russia signing the new START.

As Heinrichs said in her article, the new associate director for the National Security and International Affairs appears confident when it comes to rogues states acting rationally, but lacks confidence in his own country’s military leaders and engineers.

Rebeccah Heinrichs, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, wrote an article about START for The Hill’s Congress Blog. An excerpt:

“Despite Obama administration officials’ original claims to the contrary, the New START treaty does address missile defense — in the Preamble, no less. It states that there is a connection between offensive and defensive weapons and that our current system does not threaten Russia’s offensive weapons. The Russians want to keep it that way, and even submitted a unilateral statement to make perfectly clear that the treaty, ‘may be effective and viable only in conditions where there is no qualitative or quantitative build-up in the missile defense system capabilities of the United States of America.’

“The Russians have made it quite clear that they will withdraw from the treaty if the U.S. builds a robust missile defense system. And the Obama administration knows this and wants ratification regardless.

“As Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James N. Miller, Jr. casually admitted in his testimony, since the U.S. has only thirty ground-based interceptors and Russia plans to field over 1,000 ballistic missiles, Washington could build much more substantial missile defenses without appreciably challenging Russian forces. Yet President Obama is effectively promising President Medvedev he will ensure that the U.S. remains exposed to Russia’s massive nuclear arsenal. This was exactly what President Reagan intended to move us away from when he announced his plan to deploy defenses that would render all nuclear missiles obsolete.”

In April, we interviewed Ms. Heinrichs as a missile defense expert for our “Ask the Experts” series.

Today’s guest for our “Ask the Experts” interview series is Rebeccah Heinrichs, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. She recently co-authored an article for the Washington Times on President Barack Obama’s missile defense policy and the existing missile threat.

Welcome to the 33-Minutes blog, Ms. Heinrichs. Tell us about your organization and what it does.

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies is dedicated to studying the ideologies that drive terrorism and developing policies that can most effectively address terrorism, secure our country, and defend the democratic principles of the United States and our allies. Ultimately, the goal is to make America safer and more secure for generations to come.

Why is missile defense important?

Missile defense is especially important right now because dangerous and unstable regimes have and sell ballistic missiles. Countries like Iran could give ballistic missiles to terrorist groups; if the terrorist group were to launch them, the U.S. would have a more difficult time tracing them back to Iran.

Also, terrorists and regimes with the same radical religious ideology may not be deterred by the threat of retaliation since they view death as a good thing. Missile defense gives the U.S. military the ability to intercept an incoming missile before it lands on an unsuspecting city or military base. More fundamentally, if we have a robust missile defense system in place, it could cause other countries to reconsider pursuing ballistic missiles in the first place, if they know our system would render them useless. In other words, missile defense plays a crucial role in our deterrent strategy.

Do you believe the Obama administration is moving the U.S. in the right direction?

The administration should significantly increase the entire Missile Defense Agency (MDA) budget to fill the holes in our missile defense system as soon as technically possible– before countries like Iran and North Korea develop missiles that can penetrate the current system. Instead, the Obama administration cut promising programs the MDA was developing to pay for certain investments. The programs they have chosen to emphasize will help make our ballistic missile defense system more effective against shorter range ballistic missiles. These are good investments, and previous administrations planned to do this, too. The problem is, the Obama administration sacrificed critical programs to pay for these investments instead of increasing the top line. The programs they cut would have given the U.S. the ability to intercept missiles right after they are launch, when they are still over enemy territory. Having this ability would deter enemies from launching the missile in the first place.

The administration also cancelled the “European Site” which would have protected the U.S. and Europe from Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) within the next several years. A recent DIA report confirms Iran may have an ICBM by 2015.

What else do readers need to know about this issue?

There is no “silver bullet’ program in our layered ballistic missile defense system. Elected officials will often make the argument that they “support missile defense” by pointing to particular programs they support, while at the same time voting for cutting or eliminating other ballistic missile defense programs. Each program defends against a particular kind of ballistic missile threat, and all the systems work together to provide a protective shield for Americans and U.S. interests. Although our system does offer the U.S. some protection against certain kinds of missiles, there are still holes, and we must continue to sustain and improve upon it.
————————————————————————————–

Previous interviews:

Riki Ellison

Dr. Steven Metz

Peter Huessy

Henry Obering, a retired Air Force lieutenant general and former director of the Missile Defense Agency, and Rebeccah Heinrichs, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, co-authored an article for the Washington Times on President Barack Obama’s missile defense policy and the existing missile threat.

Obering and Heinrichs summarize the latest national security developments, such as President Barack Obama’s Nuclear Posture Review and the renewal of START. The Defense Intelligence Agency recently reported that in as little as five years, Iran may be capable of hitting the U.S. with an intercontinental ballistic missile, with North Korea’s help.

An excerpt of the article:

“Although administration officials continue to insist that the treaty does not constrain U.S. missile defense, the Russians have unilaterally declared that they would withdraw if they thought American missile-defense capabilities threatened their strategic nuclear force. U.S. missile defense is not designed to defend against Russian missiles. Its purpose is to defend America and our allies against rogue states and terrorist proxies – the threats outlined in the DIA report.

“But even if we know this to be true, it doesn’t mean the Russians will agree. The ground-based European site posed no threat to Russia, but in spite of the preponderance of evidence, the Russians disagreed. This contributed to the Obama administration’s scrapping the plan and shifting to what is called the Phased Adaptive Approach. We have yet to see how the Russians will react to this plan – a plan that requires the deployment of sea- and land-based assets on or near land occupied by the former Soviet Union.”

While we made concessions to Russia, Iran and North Korea haven’t made concessions to anyone. Missile threats from these two rogue states are growing. Obering and Heinrichs remind us that President George Bush liberated the U.S. from the ban on deployment of integrated missile defenses, but they wonder whether Obama has re-attached the chains when he “reset” relations with Russia. Flexibility is important in the shifting climate.

Read the full article.

Philip Coyle, President Barack Obama’s nominee to serve as associate director for the National Security and International Affairs in the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, is a missile defense skeptic and critic. He believes U.S. missile defense is unnecessary and doubts that rogue nations like Iran seek to attack the U.S. and its allies.

“In my view, Iran is not so suicidal as to attack Europe or the United States with missiles,” Coyle said last year.

Rebeccah Heinrichs, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, wrote about Coyle in The Politico. She quickly gets to the point.

“President Barack Obama has nominated an anti-missile defense adviser who may soon receive congressional approval — and put Americans in danger…Russia and China, two countries with nuclear weapons and effective long range ballistic missiles, have helped Iran develop its missile program. Other countries that range from the hostile to the unreliable — for example, North Korea, Syria and Pakistan — also have ballistic missile programs.”

Even in this climate, the Obama administration is scaling back missile defense instead of committing to a strong and comprehensive missile defense. Heinrichs notes that Obama effectively hampered our missile defense in exchange for renewing START with Russia.

“Enter Philip Coyle,” Heinrichs writes. “If confirmed, Coyle has indicated he would advise the administration to divest of BMDS.”

Heinrichs quotes Coyle’s 2008 congressional hearing testimony, in which he claimed the GMD wasn’t effective enough to defend Europe and the U.S., but Heinrichs says “a more complex version of GMD had completed a successful intercept test just months before. It is now the only system capable of defending the United States from long-range missiles.”

Heinrichs asks why Coyle would oppose GMD, a system necessary to protect the U.S. The answer lies in Coyle’s doubts that Iran or North Korea would launch a missile attack against us and whether GMD could deal with the onslaught if either country launched such an attack.

“Coyle’s confidence in these two countries’ rationality is startling,” Heinrichs writes. “His lack of confidence in our own military leaders and engineers is disconcerting.”

Read the full article at The Politico.