Blog

On June 6, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) successfully launched a two-stage Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI), part of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system, from Vandenberg Air Force Base. The GBI carried an exoatmospheric kill vehicle and measured the two-stage design and the vehicle’s performance. An excerpt:

“Several missile defense assets and emerging technologies observed the launch and gathered data for future analysis. Participants included the Space Tracking and Surveillance System, AN/TPY-2 X-band Radar, and the Upgraded Early Warning Radar at Beale Air Force Base, Calif. Initial indications are that all components performed as designed. Program officials will evaluate system performance based upon telemetry and other data obtained during the test.”

The Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance’s Riki Ellison said the two-stage missile was supposed to be placed in Poland before President Barack Obama dropped those plans. Ellison said the two-stage GBI can serve as hedge if Iran strikes sooner and other missiles aren’t ready. (Source)

“Additional defensive intercept shots are needed to mitigate high risk of vulnerability to the eastern United States and northern Europe from Iran as early as 2015 or sooner. The three-stage GBIs deployed in Alaska and California cannot protect northern Europe and can only provide a one-shot opportunity for the eastern United States. The remaining areas of the country are protected by two or more shot opportunities. Missile Defense Agency Director Lieutenant General Patrick J. O’Reilly stated at a missile defense conference in London last month that no greater than a 90 percent success can be achieved with a one-shot opportunity and that two-shot opportunities are needed to provide high confidence.”

The Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance‘s Riki Ellison, an expert on missile defense, commented on last week’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, where witnesses testified about ballistic missile defense policies and programs in review of the Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2011.

“During these hearings, the testimony of President Barack Obama’s appointees in the Department of Defense and the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, exposed five fundamental elements of the administration’s missile defense plan…”

Five elements of the Obama administration’s missile defense plan emerged from the testimony: Iran, with North Korea’s help, could hit the U.S. with an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) in five years; in 10 years, the U.S. will have a Europe-based second shot capability to defend against Iran’s ICBM; the current plan for homeland defense are interceptors in California and Alaska; for at least five years, there will be a protection gap against Iran’s ICBM; and Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly suggested a few approaches to protecting the U.S. until the gap is closed.

In light of these findings, Ellison suggests the administration “move forward with urgency for a robust testing and deployment plan of the two-stage GBI on or before 2015 to ensure full protection of the U.S. homeland from Iran.”

Related post:

Ask the Experts: Riki Ellison

Negotiations between Russia and the U.S. to renew the START treaty are ongoing. Russia wants to link offensive and defensive systems. The AP reported that President Dmitry Medvedev and President Barack Obama agreed to the link, but negotiations are stalled over the language.

It’s no surprise that Russia also wants access to our missile defense strategy in Eastern and Central Europe. In fact, Russia believes it got the short end of the deal in the earlier treaty. “If the Americans continue to expand their missile defenses, they will certainly target our nuclear capability and in this case the balance of forces will shift in favor of the United States,” General Nikolai Makarov said. (Source)

Riki Ellison of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance believes there should be no missile defense link in the new treaty.

“Giving up missile defense protection of the U.S., Europe or any place we have troops and allies, in exchange for a reduction of arms with Russia is unfair, unsafe and would leave us defenseless against the current threats from Iran and North Korea as well as other future threats,” he said in a 33-minutes blog interview last week.

Today’s guest for our “Ask the Experts” interview series is Riki Ellison, Chairman and Founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance (MDAA). The group also has a blog, which covers the latest missile defense news.

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

MDAA’s mission is to drive the political will through education and advocacy to make the world safer from the proliferation and threat of ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction to our nation, troops overseas and allies by advocating for the development and deployment of missile defense systems.

We are a non-profit, non-partisan organization that is membership driven. I founded the organization after President G.W. Bush and Congress withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and made the decision to move forward on missile defenses in December 2002.

I have been passionately involved with Missile Defense since 1983, inspired by President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative speech and briefed by Dr. Edward Teller.

Why is missile defense important?

Because in the world we live in today the United States cannot deter states or third party actors from attacking or threatening others with nuclear weapons or WMD by relying solely on the mutually assured destruction through the retaliation of U.S. nuclear weapons.

Missile defense provides our President with other options to stabilize crisis regions like the Middle East or the Far East without the American and Allied bloodshed that would come with preemptive military action. Having missile defense allows our allies to refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities if a neighboring state or third actor does. Japan and South Korea’s reaction to North Korea’s nuclear status are working examples of this.

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

They have made broad policy statements in support of missile defense as stated by the Secretary of Defense in the Ballistic Missile Defense Review released March 1, 2010. However, actions speak louder than words. The 2010 and 2011 defense budgets for missile defense are less than President George W. Bush’s and the threat and proliferation of ballistic missiles has risen during the same time. There are concerns about adequate protection of the U.S. homeland with the reduction of defensive long range Interceptors from 44 to 30. The acceptance of the high risk of protection of the east coast of the U.S. without a multiple shots as the rest of the nation has is a great concern. What exactly is the plan of deployment of the Presidents vision for missile defense and how much will it cost to defend our allies.

What else do readers need to know about this issue?

Two key points:

First, there should be no connection to missile defense in the upcoming START treaty to reduce strategic arms with Russia. Giving up missile defense protection of the U.S., Europe or any place we have troops and allies, in exchange for a reduction of arms with Russia is unfair, unsafe and would leave us defenseless against the current threats from Iran and North Korea as well as other future threats.

Second, the cut in funds and programming for the Airborne Laser by the current administration is not in the best interest of our national security. This system demonstrated two laser shoot downs, at the speed of light, on two boosting ballistic missiles this year. This was a revolutionary achievement by a system that should continue to be developed and eventually deployed. It is the only system that has been proven to destroy missiles in their boost phase. It is a game changer for the United States.
————————————————————————————–

Previous interview:

Dr. Steven Metz

According to a survey by the Opinion Research Corporation, 87 percent of Americans believes the U.S. should have a missile defense system. Fifty-seven percent prefer missile defense over pre-emptive or diplomatic military actions when dealing with missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction.

Riki Ellison, President of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, said the “American Public support for missile defense is at the highest level ever recorded, and has shown the continual increase in the public’s awareness of the threat and their support for the United States to have missile defense to defend them from that threat since 2002, when the President and Congress made the decision to deploy missile defenses for our country.”

For more information, visit the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance’s web site.