Blog

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.

When President Ronald Reagan introduced his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) in 1983, opponents and critics in Congress sarcastically referred to the program as “Star Wars.” Such degrading rhetoric was meant to conjure up notions of Dearth Vader and Han Solo, suggesting somehow that Reagan’s vision was as far-fetched as Luke Skywalker trying to destroy the Death Star with one well-placed shot.

All joking aside, comparisons between the Soviet Union and the “Dark Side” were actually quite astute. As if facing-off with “light-sabers,” Reagan described the mutual defense posture of the U.S. and Soviet Union as two westerners standing in a saloon aiming their guns at each other’s head — permanently. Reagan’s visionary solution was to invent a defensive weapon that could intercept nuclear weapons and destroy them as they emerged from their silos. He named this vision SDI.

In order to work toward his goal, Reagan announced that he was directing a comprehensive and intensive effort to define long-term R&D to achieve his goal. Without his long-term foresight, the “Brilliant Pebbles” program that was halted by the Clinton Administration in 1993 would never have materialized. In short, it is long-term efforts that enable short-term progress, a lesson that our leaders today should wisely heed.

Twenty-seven years after Reagan proposed that the U.S. focus on strategic defense rather than offense, the number of countries with ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons has increased.

The San Francisco Examiner published an editorial on missile defense and mentioned the Heritage Foundation’s high-definition documentary, “33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age.”

The editorial reminds us about President Ronald Reagan’s tough stance on missile defense, a stance that “encouraged” the former Soviet Union to back down. President George W. Bush continued the policies, but the Obama administration appears set to undermine what those presidents achieved by bargaining with Russia and reneging on missle defense agreements in Central Europe.

As we mentioned last week, Russia claimed it’s willing to back down if the U.S. reconsiders building missile defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama may do just that in exchange for Russia helping the U.S. keep Iran under control. An excerpt of the editorial:

“Heritage defense analyst Baker Spring told The Examiner this week that extensive ‘war games’ trials have shown that missile defense is even more necessary in today’s more nuclear-proliferated world than it was during the Cold War between just two superpowers. He said the emerging Obama position is flat-out ‘dumb’ because of ‘the unpredictability in a multi-polar world that carries very profound security threats.’ He’s right: To give up on a system with demonstrated success, and even greater promise of saving innocent lives, would be folly.”

 
On Tuesday, we blogged about the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) successfully shooting down a missile during a simulated attack. The missile was tracked and intercepted by a kill vehicle 25 minutes after launch. This was the eighth success of the ground-based system in 13 tests since 1999.

SPX reports that defense contractor Raytheon’s components had “key roles in the destruction of a ballistic missile target” during the simulation. Raytheon built the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle, which intercepted the missile.

Raytheon Missile Systems president Dr. Taylor W. Lawrence said, “”This highly successful test of the GMD system once again demonstrates Raytheon’s commitment to performance and reliability…We continue to prove the maturity of our kill vehicle technology and our ability to provide this critical capability to the nation.”

The inceptor, fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, hit its target, which was launched from Kodiak Island in Alaska.

Last March, Vandenberg dedicated a missile launch observation platform in honor of former President Ronald Reagan, who commenced the Strategic Defense Initiative. The memorial features a bronze bust of Reagan and a plaque honoring him.

In his 1983 “Star Wars” speech, Reagan emphasized the need for ground and space-based systems to intercept ballistic missiles. His initiative was the forerunner of the MDA.

 
On October 10, 2006, former Secretary of State George Shultz and former Ambassadors Rozanne Ridgeway and Max Kampelman discussed the Strategic Defense Initiative, also known as “Star Wars,” at the Hoover Institution.
 
In 1983, President Ronald Reagan proposed that the U.S. focus on strategic defense rather than offense. From the Strategic Defense Initiative came the Missile Defense Agency.
 
Panelists discussed Reagan’s ideas, focusing on countries like North Korea, India, and Iran. Watch and listen below:

 
President Ronald Reagan got the ball rolling on the development of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) with his Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983. Twenty-five years after he proposed that the U.S. focus on strategic defense rather than offense, the number of countries with ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons has increased.

Thirty-six years ago (1972), nine countries had ballistic missile capability, including China, Germany, Russia, and the US. In 2007, over 20 countries had this capability, including India, Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey.

In 1972, only six countries could be described as nuclear states: China, France, Israel, Russia, the UK, and the US. In 2007, three countries were added to the list: India, North Korea, Pakistan.

Some of these countries are allies; others are not. It’s up the MDA to develop missile defense technology and to train a workforce committed to protecting us from foreign enemies.

1. The Missile Age 1972 (PDF)

2. The New Missile Age 2007 (PDF)

3. Nuclear States in the Missile Age 1972 (PDF)

4. Nuclear States in the New Missile Age 2007 (PDF)

There are many champions of missile defense across America, but the legacy of these five individuals is truly remarkable.

1) President Ronald Reagan first learned about technology related to missile defense during a visit to the Livermore Labs while governor of California. Reagan stated that he came into office with a decided prejudice against the U.S.-Soviet agreement on nuclear missiles. He was simply not comfortable with “mutually assured destruction” as a means of theoretical security.

In true maverick fashion, Reagan proposed a simple solution: What if we could destroy adversary’s missiles as soon as they left their silos? So began the Strategic Defense Initiative, known as SDI. Reagan was fond of the phrase “peace through strength,” meaning that defensive and offensive military superiority is the best way to ensure American’s safety. Reagan’s “Address to the Nation on Defense and National Security” emphasized his desire to increase America’s security through technological superiority, rendering the threat of missile attack obsolete. Although Reagan’s vision for space-based missile defense was halted in 1993, many believe that the United States and its leaders must revisit this crucial domain of defense.

2) Perhaps best known as the “father of the U.S. Air Force Space and Missile Programs,” Gen. Bernard A. Schriever headed a small group of officers who went to Los Angeles in July 1954 to organize and form what has since become the Air Force’s ballistic and systems divisions under the Air Force Systems Command. AFSC has produced such ballistic missiles as Thor, Atlas, Titan and Minuteman.

Schriever was a firm believer in a strong defense as a deterrent, spearheading the development of long-range missiles capable of launching the military’s communication satellites. In 1963, he directed Project Forecast, one of the most comprehensive long-range assessments of the military’s science and technology capabilities. Having been credited with ushering the United States into the space age, Schriever retired in 1966 after 33 tears in the military. In 1998, Falcon Air Force Base near Colorado Springs was renamed Schriever Air Force Base, the first time a base was named after a living individual.

3) U.S. Sen. Malcolm Wallop was elected in 1976 and held his seat for 18 years, retiring in 1994. Graduating from Yale University in 1954, Wallop served as a first lieutenant in the U.S. Army. In 1978, Wallop was the first elected official to propose a space-based missile defense system, a program that later became part of the Strategic Defense Initiative.

A pioneer, admired by friends and colleagues in the Senate, Wallop recognized that the ABM Treaty should not be an impediment to ballistic missile defense. Wallop’s strategic vision and leadership was crucial in drawing Congress’ attention to this most important issue. Today, we need more leaders like Wallop to ensure missile defense receives the attention it deserves.

4) Ambassador Henry F. Cooper’s accomplishments are diverse, but his contributions to missile defense are particularly noteworthy. Cooper was appointed by Reagan to serve as assistant director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, responsible for keeping the Soviets engaged in bilateral negotiations. Cooper also served as the former head of the Pentagon’s missile defense organization and is a long-standing supporter and led the charge to reinvigorate Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative.

The author of numerous publications, Cooper also chaired the 1996 Missile Defense Study Team sponsored by The Heritage Foundation. Cooper held the position of chairman of High Frontier, a non-profit organization that actively supported the deployment of an effective defense against ballistic missiles, most notably during the 1980s and 1990s.

5) In 1941, Edward Teller became one of the first physicists to be recruited to the Manhattan Project in Los Alamos and was the intellectual force behind the development of the H-bomb. Yet Teller was not simply “offensive” in character. He started thinking about missile defense as early as 1945. Teller’s first major success in advocating for missile defense was his encounter with then-Gov. Ronald Reagan at the weapons lab at Livermore. Teller is considered by many to be the chief inspiration behind Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative.

Teller was quoted in the National Review as saying, “Missile defense is for national survival, and it’s more important than defense against terrorism.” Teller’s comments are telling, what’s more, missile defense and defense against terrorism may be more closely linked than many would think.

Documentaries are supposed to “document” facts, but that’s hard to tell by watching some recent films. Liberal activists such as Michael Moore and Robert Greenwald have turned the American documentary into the worst political propaganda.

Politicized documentaries are nothing new. In the 1930s, the Worker’s Film and Photo League made films to popularize socialist causes. During the Depression, the Roosevelt administration ordered up films to trumpet the political causes of the New Deal. In the 1950s and 1960s, documentary filmmakers adopted techniques from avant garde schools like Cinéma Vérité (on location shooting, nonprofessional actors, minimalist scripts, and hand-held cameras). The appearance of “raw” filmmaking made their documentaries seem more like they were “documenting” real life. The Vietnam War inspired a dramatic expansion of interest in politicized documentaries.

All that said, the current spate of politicized documentary films is in a league of its own. The worst of the worst was Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11.” Hollywood even handed him an Oscar. Others have followed Moore’s lead. Greenwald has produced a series of films denouncing, among others, the conservative media (“Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism”), corporations (“Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price”), and defense contractors (“Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers”).

“At the D.C. premiere [of ‘Iraq for Sale’],” relates one report, “[Greenwald] made it clear that the film’s agenda is to affect the 2006 election. In a Q&A following the film, Greenwald and Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future, talked about producing the film in time for the election.” Greenwald worked with anti-war groups such as MoveOn.org to speed sales and distribution. “There’s no objectivity in this film,” Walter Addiego writes for the San Francisco Chronicle, “Greenwald’s goal is not to offer balanced coverage but to roil the waters.”

Greenwald has made the politicized documentary a potent force. There are dangers here. Documentaries live in a shadowland. Unlike traditional Hollywood fare, they can claim they offer real facts because they deal with real subjects. But, these filmmakers are not bound by any rules or ethics. They do not have to adhere to the standards of journalism followed by reporters — and they don’t.

Someone has to fight back. Playing politics is one thing, but playing politics with issues of national security such as war, peace and missile defense is another. Heritage has made a commitment to tell the other side of the story — a principled, non-partisan assessment of issues of national import in a documentary format.

It’s little surprise that we decided to make a full-length, broadcast quality, high-definition film about missile defense. Heritage sponsored the High Frontier report that first inspired President Ronald Reagan to propose the Strategic Defense Initiative. More recently, Heritage played a key role advocating the abrogation of the Ballistic Missile Treaty, which allowed the government to test and deploy a system capable of stopping a ballistic missile fired from North Korea at the United States. Heritage analyst Baker Spring is one of the highest-regard researchers on this issue and his colleague Peter Brookes is a nationally recognized security expert have been working on this issue for years.

For more than 200 years, providing for “the common defense” of the sovereign soil of the United States has been an unquestioned mandate delivered to our government by the Constitution. But with the advent of more sophisticated weaponry, as well as rise of politically motivated ridicule of defense systems to neutralize high-technology attack systems, the government has stepped away from its historical mandate at perhaps the most dangerous time in history.

In particular, the real and present danger of rogue nations and anti-western terrorist regimes utilizing long-range, sub-orbital missiles to attack the continental United States begs for a solution that was proposed 25 years ago by President Ronald Reagan. But that was abandoned in favor of a lower budget, limited substitute that has now left the window of our skies dangerously open for exploitation — potentially to our great harm.

Early next year, The Heritage Foundation will release a high-definition documentary that tells the story of the very real threat that hostile nations and rogue dictators now pose to every one of us. The truth is brutal: no matter where on the earth a missile is launched from, it would take 33 minutes or less to hit the U.S. target it was programmed to destroy. We must cause people to stop and face this horrible reality.

Aptly named, “33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age”, our documentary will be a key component in exposing our vulnerability to moms, dads and citizens across the country. The time has come to revive the strategic missile defense system that America uniquely can develop, maintain and employ for its own defense and the peace-loving world’s security.

Stay tuned to this blog for the latest news and commentary on missile defense, including photos, videos and other multimedia resources. The only way to secure America is to make a sustained commitment to national security by building robust strategic systems, including comprehensive missile defense. We firmly believe education is essential component to meeting that goal.