Blog

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.

 Representative Michael Turner, a Republican Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, spoke about the subcommittee’s upcoming hearing on missile defense testing. An excerpt:

“As we begin our discussion on missile defense testing, we should start by establishing a baseline of where we are today. The missile defense capability our nation has fielded today consists of—26 ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, 18 Aegis missile defense ships, 13 Patriot battalions, 5 radar tracking systems, and command and control systems.

“As I have learned from intelligence analysts at NASIC, in my home district, the threat doesn’t wait for us to perfect our defenses. If, for example, North Korea were to launch a long-range Taepo-Dong missile tomorrow, we could use this system to protect the American people, our forces abroad, and allies. As Secretary Gates recently suggested, the Pentagon was prepared to use its missile defense capabilities to bring down a North Korean missile if necessary.

“Having this missile defense capability today as an option is the direct result of U.S. leadership, and the hard work and dedication of a strong government and industry team.

“Both the Chairman and I agree that our missile defense assets must be effective and credible. I was particularly interested in Mr. Mitchell’s written statement that, “our nation’s ballistic missile defense capability cannot be disregarded today and will provide an even more effective defense in the future.” Therefore, continued testing to increase the effectiveness, credibility, and flexibility of an already deployed system against evolving threats is a commitment we all make.

“A common misconception about missile defense is that the technology doesn’t work and tests are not realistic. A good starting point for us here today is to better understand the progress made to-date. What is the state of our missile defense capabilities? As I understand it, the Missile Defense Agency is reviewing their test plans and there is good alignment between them and the test community in this process. I am interested in hearing more about what our test objectives are, how assessments are made, where gaps and shortfalls exist, and how the rebaselined test program should address these.”